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 Amendments and Arguments
The amendments and arguments filed 10/22/2025 are acknowledged and have been fully considered. Claims 1 and 2 have been amended; claim 3 has been added; no claims have been canceled or withdrawn. Claims 1-3 are now pending and under consideration.
The previous objection to claim 2 has been withdrawn, in light of the amendments to the claim.
Applicant asserts on pages 4-5 of the remarks that the current prior art rejection of independent claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0066257 to Ochocinski et al. in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0063430 to Yu et al. cannot be maintained in view of the amendments to the claim. The examiner does not disagree, as the Ochocinski and Yu, alone or in combination, do not fully teach the last four lines of amended claim 1. However, upon further consideration, amended claim 1 is now rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ochocinski in view of Yu, and in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2003/0156020 to Masuda.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation is: “vehicle control device” in claims 1-3.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0066257 to Ochocinski et al. (hereinafter: “Ochocinski”) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0063430 to Yu et al. (hereinafter: “Yu”), and in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2003/0156020 to Masuda (hereinafter: “Masuda”).
With respect to claim 1, Ochocinski teaches a vehicle control device (apparent from at least Fig. 1) mounted on a vehicle (10) capable of external charging (e.g., via 36), the vehicle control device being configured to: control a state of the vehicle to a first state, in which a movement of the vehicle is prohibited (e.g., via 64), when receiving an instruction signal (e.g., via 62) from a charging device (e.g., 36), which connects a charging connector (e.g., 38) to a charging port (32) (apparent from at least Figs. 1 & 2); determine whether there is a request for releasing the first state by a user of the vehicle while the vehicle is controlled under the first state [as depicted by at least Figs. 1-3 and as discussed by at least ¶ 0014-0015, 0018-0032 & 0037-0039, an electronic control unit (ECU) 30 and/or a battery charger of the “vehicle control device” determine(s) whether a vehicle user generates a vehicle start request (e.g., at 68) while the vehicle 10 is prevented from starting and moving (e.g., “first state”), including when an evaluated plug status of the vehicle 10 is one of faulty or unknown (e.g., via 62)]; based on a determination of the request for releasing the first state by the user of the vehicle while the vehicle is controlled under the first state, determine whether the charging connector is connected to the charging port [as depicted by at least Figs. 2 & 3 and as discussed by at least ¶ 0030-0035 & 0037-0039, the ECU 30 and/or the battery charger of the “vehicle control device” determine(s) whether a plug status of the electrical coupler 38 is unplugged (e.g., at 72 or 74) in response to determining that the vehicle user generated the vehicle start request while the vehicle 10 is prevented from starting and moving, including subsequent to the evaluated plug status of the vehicle 10 being the one of faulty or unknown]; and based on a determination that the charging connector is not connected to the charging port, control the vehicle to release the first state [as depicted by at least Figs. 2 & 3 and as discussed by at least ¶ 0030, 0033 & 0037-0039, the ECU 30 and/or the battery charger of the “vehicle control device” controls enabling of the vehicle 10 to start and move (e.g., at 66), thereby releasing the prevention of the vehicle 10 from starting and moving, in response to determining that the plug status of the electrical coupler 38 is unplugged (e.g., at 72 and/or 74), including subsequent to the evaluated plug status of the vehicle 10 being the one of faulty or unknown].
Ochocinski appears to lack a clear teaching as to whether the vehicle control device is configured to control the state of the vehicle to the first state when receiving the instruction signal from an automatic charging device, which automatically connects the charging connector to the charging port.
Yu teaches an analogous vehicle control device mounted on a vehicle capable of external charging, the vehicle configured to charge via an automatic charging device, which automatically connects a charging connector to a charging port; and not charge via the automatic charging device when the charging connector is not connected to the charging port (apparent from at least Figs. 1-5B in view of at least 0001-0005).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified the vehicle corresponding to the vehicle control device of Ochocinski with the teachings of Yu to be configured to also charge via an automatic charging device, which automatically connects the charging connector to the charging port, and to have modified the vehicle control device of the vehicle of Ochocinski with the teachings of Yu such that the vehicle control device is configured to control the state of the vehicle to the first state when receiving the instruction signal from the automatic charging device, which automatically connects the charging connector to the charging port, because Ochocinski further teaches that such a configuration beneficially enables hands-free charging in the alternative to conventional manual connection and disconnection of a charging cable to a vehicle.
Ochocinski also appears to lack a clear teaching as to whether the vehicle control device is configured to: based on the determination that the charging connector is not connected to the charging port, determine whether there is an obstacle in a traveling direction of the vehicle; and based on a determination that there is no obstacle in the traveling direction of the vehicle, control the vehicle to release the first state [note that the ECU 30 and/or the battery charger of the “vehicle control device” of Ochocinski controls the enabling of the vehicle 10 to start and move (e.g., at 66), thereby releasing the prevention of the vehicle 10 from starting and moving, regardless of whether there is an obstacle in a traveling direction of the vehicle 10].
Masuda teaches an analogous vehicle control device mounted on a vehicle, the vehicle control device being configured to: determine whether there is an obstacle in a traveling direction of the vehicle based on a determination of a request for releasing a first state by a user of the vehicle while the vehicle is controlled under the first state; and based on a determination that there is no obstacle in the traveling direction of the vehicle, control the vehicle to release the first state (apparent from at least Figs. 1-2 in view of at least ¶ 0002-0009 & 0016-0021).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified the vehicle corresponding to the vehicle control device of Ochocinski with the teachings of Masuda such that the vehicle control device is further configured to determine whether there is an obstacle in a traveling direction of the vehicle based on the determination that the charging connector is not connected to the charging port, and control the vehicle to release the first state based on a determination that there is no obstacle in the traveling direction of the vehicle to beneficially prevent collision between the vehicle and the obstacle when the obstacle is out of view and/or to beneficially prevent blowing exhaust gases against a person or flammable object at a rear part of the vehicle.
With respect to claim 2, Ochocinski modified supra teaches the vehicle control device according to claim 1, wherein the vehicle control device is further configured to: determine whether there is the request for releasing the first state by the user by detecting an operation by the user on a screen of a car navigation device (e.g., 50 of Ochocinski) of the vehicle while the vehicle is controlled under the first state (e.g., via 70 & 72 of Ochocinski) (apparent from at least Figs. 1-3 in view of at least ¶ 0032-0039 of Ochocinski).
With respect to claim 3, Ochocinski modified supra teaches the vehicle control device according to claim 1, wherein the vehicle control device is further configured to: control the vehicle to release the first state and move to a second state in which the movement of the vehicle is permitted when receiving a release signal from the automatic charging device [as depicted by at least Figs. 2 & 3 and as discussed by at least ¶ 0030 & 0037-0038 of Ochocinski, the ECU 30 and/or the battery charger of the “vehicle control device” controls enabling of the vehicle 10 to start and move (e.g., at 66), thereby releasing the prevention of the vehicle 10 from starting and moving, in response to determining that the plug status of the electrical coupler 38 is unplugged subsequent to the evaluated plug status of the vehicle 10 being plugged-in (e.g., at 62)]; and release the first state and move to the second state based on the determination of the request for releasing the first state by the user of the vehicle while the vehicle is controlled under the first state, the charging connector being not connected to the charging port, and there being no obstacle in the traveling direction of the vehicle, regardless of whether the release signal was received (as discussed in detail above with respect to claim 1).
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 JOHN ZALESKAS whose telephone number is (571)272-5958. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 AM - 4:00 PM.
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, Logan Kraft can be reached at 571-270-5065. 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.
/JOHN M ZALESKAS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747