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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Priority is being given to 09/04/2023.
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the amendments filed on 10/17/2025.
Claims 1 and 4-11 are currently pending and have been examined.
Claims 1, 4, and 5 are currently amended.
Claims 2 and 3 are cancelled.
Claims 6-11 are new.
Claims 1 and 4-11 are currently rejected.
This action is made FINAL.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 10/17/2025 have been fully considered but they are not fully persuasive.
Regarding the 112 rejections, in light of the amendments these rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant argues that Fukubayashi fails to teach “prohibiting the ECU from executing the update during the charging depending on the urgency level”. Paragraphs [0155-0163] as well as fig. 16 of Fukubayashi discloses a scenario when charging is prohibited when the vehicle is charging when the importances level is low (fig. 16, S54 - No). Applicant appears to conflate the consideration of different modes as changing the outcome of the process of fig. 16 when a vehicle is charging. Fukubayashi explicitly states “when the importance of the update program is low, the update program can be executed when the storage battery unit 11 is in a standby mode and cannot be executed when the storage battery unit is in a charging or discharging mode [0162]”. This makes it clear that low priority updates are prohibited and teach the limitations that Fukubayashi are mapped to. Therefore the rejections are maintain.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 7-8 and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The specification in paragraphs [0042] and [0054] disclose “the update application 213 may be interlocked with the schedule application 211 and the map application 212.” It does not disclose wherein the calculating is performed “by interlocking with…” The specification merely states that the applications can be interlocked, not that the interlocking occurs in response to performing a specific calculation. Therefore claims 7 and 8 lack written description and claims 10 and 11 are rejected due to their dependence upon rejected claims 7 and 8.
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 7-8 and 10-11 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.
Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The term “interlocking” in claims 7 and 8 is used by the claim to mean “connected to/in communication with” while the accepted meaning is “locked together or interconnected in a way that one cannot function without the other” The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term.
Claims 10-11 are rejected due to their dependence upon rejected claims 7 and 8.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4-6, and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 2022/0179638), herein Lee in view of Fukubayashi (US 2016/0226262), herein Fukubayashi, Morii et. al. (US 2021/0188243), herein Morii and Yamamoto (US 2010/0207772).
Regarding claim 1:
Lee teaches:
A vehicle control device for controlling a vehicle (fig. 2B, vehicle update apparatus 100), the vehicle including a battery that is chargeable using an external power source (a vehicle equipped with the vehicle update apparatus 100 may include an electric vehicle (EV) or a plug-in hybrid electric vehicle (PHEV) that receives electricity through external charging [0049]), a communication unit (The processor 110 may be directly or indirectly connected to an update target 120 through wireless or wired communication [0050]) that is communicable with an external server (fig. 2B, OTA update server 210) regarding various types of data by wireless communication (the processor 110 may receive update-related information for each update target 120 through communication with an OTA update server [0056]), and an electronic control unit (ECU) (a number of controllers are used in vehicles for the convenience of drivers and occupants [0003]) that executes various types of control based on a control program stored in advance (the processor 110 may update the controller of the vehicle, based on a ROM (Read-Only Memory) file received from the OTA update server. [0059]; examiner notes that although not explicitly stated, Lee recites controllers of the vehicles (ECU) which inherently operate their specified sub units according to a stored program as is well known in the art.), wherein:
the vehicle control device is configured to detect a request for update with respect to the control program, from the external server to the ECU (the processor 110 may update the controller of the vehicle, based on a ROM (Read-Only Memory) file received from the OTA update server [0059]), during charging of the battery by the external power source (the processor 110 may perform control of a process of reprogramming the controller during the update process of receiving the ROM file and reprogramming the controller in consideration of the charging schedule. [0060]);
Lee does not explicitly teach, however Fukubayashi teaches:
determine whether a degree of urgency of the update is within a predetermined level (the updating timing determination unit 14 extracts importance information included in the updating information and recognizes importance which is specified by the importance information. When the importance is equal to or less than the predetermined level (Yes in S52) [0157]; as a result of the determination in S52, when the importance is higher than the predetermined level (No in S52) [0160]);
in repose to a determination that the degree of urgency of the update is not within the predetermined level (when the importance of the update program is low [0162]), prohibit the ECU from executing the update during the charging (the update program can be executed when the storage battery unit 11 is in a standby mode and cannot be executed when the storage battery unit is in a charging or discharging mode [0162]);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lee to include the teachings as taught by Fukubayashi with a reasonable expectation of success. Both references are in the same field of endeavor of updating a vehicle with considerations as to charging status. Fukubayashi further provides the benefit of “it is possible to realize an updating method capable of suppressing inconveniences that may occur due to the forcible stop of charging or discharging being performed by a storage battery system [Fukubayashi, 0009]”.
Lee in view of Fukubayashi does not explicitly teach, however Morii teaches:
based on an update power amount consumed by the update (a second step (step S25) of acquiring an electric power amount required for the control device to update the control program [0135]) and a required power amount for the battery after the charging is complete (a fourth step (steps S31 to S33) of charging the electric power storage device such that the remaining capacity becomes the electric power amount or larger when it is determined that the remaining capacity is smaller than the electric power amount in the third step [0136]) and
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lee and Fukubayashi to include the teachings as taught by Morii with a reasonable expectation of success. Both references are in the same field of endeavor of updating a vehicle with considerations as to charging status. Morii further provides the benefit of “enabling a control program to update early while preventing an update of the control program from failing due to insufficient electric power of an electric power storage device [Morii, 0010]”.
Lee in view of Fukubayashi and Morii does not explicitly teach, however Yamamoto teaches:
in response to a determination that the degree of urgency of the update is within the predetermined level, while updating the control program, calculate a remaining charging time required for charging the battery from the external power source (The charge completion information can be obtained when the present charge amount reaches to the required charge amount. The estimated time can be obtained by estimating a time necessary to charge the battery to the required charge amount taking the present charge amount into consideration. [0008]), based on an update power amount consumed by the update (although Yamamoto does not teach taking into consideration of the power draw of the update into consideration when calculating the estimate time, however adding in the consideration of the power needed to perform an update as taught by Morii would be obvious because it would by applying a known method to achieve a predictable result. If there was a significant power drain affecting the net charging speed of the vehicle, it would be obvious to account for it in the estimation of the time required to achieve the desired charge level.) and a required power amount for the battery after the charging is complete (The remote monitoring system 1 is constructed to calculate and generate an estimated time T1 as charge information when performing the charging operation. The estimated time T1 is estimated as a time which is considered necessary to charge the battery 42 to the required charge amount Ctar by taking the present charge amount Cdet detected by the charge amount detecting device 51 into consideration. [0029]) and
notify a user of the calculated remaining charging time (The remote monitoring system 1 is constructed to send the estimated time T1 to the terminal 6 via the WAN communication device 53 and the communication network 12. The terminal 6 is a portable device owned by the user of the plug-in vehicle. The charge controller 5 calculates and sends the estimated time T1 [0030]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lee, Fukubayashi, and Morii to include the teachings as taught by Yamamoto with a reasonable expectation of success. Both references are in the same field of endeavor of updating a vehicle with considerations as to charging status. Yamamoto further provides the benefit of “manages the battery and a detecting device for detecting the present charge amount, and section which manages charging operation based on information retrieved from other module [Yamamoto, 0011]”.
Regarding claim 4:
Lee in view of Fukubayashi, Morii, and Yamamoto teaches all the limitations of claim 1, upon which this claim is dependent.
Yamamoto further teaches:
wherein the required power amount is a required power amount for traveling to a destination (The calculating module 50 calculates the required charge mount for the battery 42 necessary to reach to the destination from the charging station 2 or the required charge amount for the battery 42 necessary to reach to the destination and return to the charging station 2 again [0028]).
Regarding claim 5:
Lee in view of Fukubayashi, Morii, and Yamamoto teaches all the limitations of claim 4, upon which this claim is dependent.
Yamamoto further teaches:
the vehicle control device is configured to determine whether the battery is chargeable at the destination when executing the update during the charging (a destination of the planned trip may be another charging station which is placed to charge the plug-in vehicle from the power source. [0014]; The user inputs a destination to the ear-navigation system 52 before or after starting the charging operation. Then, the system retrieves the information including the destination from the car-navigation system 52. This step is shown in a step S102. In a step S103, the calculating module 50 calculates the required charge amount Ctar. The vehicle calculating module 50 retrieves the information about the destination from the car-navigation system 52, and calculates the required charge amount Ctar. The required charge amount Ctar is a charge amount necessary for a one way trip to the destination from the charging station or for a round trip to the destination from the charging station. [0034]; examiner notes that the information received about the destination would include charging availability and factor into the determination of the required charge amount is such for a one-way or round trip.);
the vehicle control device is configured to calculate the required power amount for one way trip to the destination (The remote monitoring system 1 includes a calculating module 50 which calculates a required charge amount necessary for a one way trip to the destination from the charging station [0028]) in response to a determination that the battery is chargeable at the destination (The required charge amount Ctar is a charge amount necessary for a one way trip to the destination from the charging station or for a round trip to the destination from the charging station. [0034]); and
the vehicle control device is configured to, in response to a determination that the battery is not chargeable at the destination (The required charge amount Ctar is a charge amount necessary for a one way trip to the destination from the charging station or for a round trip to the destination from the charging station. [0034]), calculate the required power amount for a round trip to the destination (the required charge amount necessary for a round trip to the destination from the charging station [0028]).
Regarding claim 6:
Lee in view of Fukubayashi, Morii, and Yamamoto teaches all the limitations of claim 1, upon which this claim is dependent.
Morii further teaches:
wherein the update power amount is calculated (the update control device 11 acquires the electric power amount Y required for updating the control program [0092]) based on a data size of the update program (the data amount of the update control program [0092]), an estimated current amount (electric power consumption of the electronic control device 12 per unit time [0092]), or an estimated processing time of the update (examiner is interpreting this limitation in the alternative, however notes that this is an obvious determination that would be taught by a different reference if required.).
Regarding claim 9:
Lee in view of Fukubayashi, Morii, and Yamamoto teaches all the limitations of claim 1, upon which this claim is dependent.
Fukubayashi further teaches:
wherein the vehicle control device is configured to reserve a start time of the update for a non-urgent update after charging is completed (the updating timing determination unit 14 may determine a timing at which an update program is executed so that an updating process can be completed during standby in the schedule, on the basis of the charging and discharging schedule and the updating time information [0090]).
Claim(s) 7-8 and 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 2022/0179638), herein Lee in view of Fukubayashi (US 2016/0226262), herein Fukubayashi, Morii et. al. (US 2021/0188243), herein Morii and Yamamoto (US 2010/0207772) in further view of Shimotani et. al. (US 2013/0093393), herein Shimotani.
Regarding claim 7:
Lee in view of Fukubayashi, Morii, and Yamamoto teaches all the limitations of claim 4, upon which this claim is dependent.
Lee in view of Fukubayashi, Morii, and Yamamoto do not explicitly teach, however Shimotani teaches:
wherein the required power amount is calculated (the required charge amount calculation unit 22 that calculates a required charge amount Hd for the charge vehicle 3 [0088]) by interlocking with a schedule application (travel the corresponding scheduled travel route [0088]) and a map application (the navigation apparatus 15 having a geographic data base unit 17 that stores geographic data [0088]) to obtain a destination (the route calculation unit 16 calculates a scheduled travel route to the destination [0088]) and a traveling distance to the destination (based on the travel distance of the scheduled travel route [0088]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lee, Fukubayashi, Morii, and Yamamoto to include the teachings as taught by Shimotani with a reasonable expectation of success. Both references are in the same field of endeavor of controlling and determining the charging status/timing of a vehicle. Shimotani teaches the benefits “to provide a charging control apparatus that can charge power sufficient for a travel of a vehicle at a cheap electric fee by a predetermined date and time. [Shimotani, 0011]”.
Regarding claim 8:
Lee in view of Fukubayashi, Morii, and Yamamoto teaches all the limitations of claim 6, upon which this claim is dependent.
Lee in view of Fukubayashi, Morii, and Yamamoto do not explicitly teach, however Shimotani teaches:
wherein the required power amount is calculated (the required charge amount calculation unit 22 that calculates a required charge amount Hd for the charge vehicle 3 [0088]) by interlocking with a schedule application (travel the corresponding scheduled travel route [0088]) and a map application (the navigation apparatus 15 having a geographic data base unit 17 that stores geographic data [0088]) to obtain a destination (the route calculation unit 16 calculates a scheduled travel route to the destination [0088]) and a traveling distance to the destination (based on the travel distance of the scheduled travel route [0088]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lee, Fukubayashi, Morii, and Yamamoto to include the teachings as taught by Shimotani with a reasonable expectation of success. Both references are in the same field of endeavor of controlling and determining the charging status/timing of a vehicle. Shimotani teaches the benefits “to provide a charging control apparatus that can charge power sufficient for a travel of a vehicle at a cheap electric fee by a predetermined date and time. [Shimotani, 0011]”.
Regarding claim 10:
Lee in view of Fukubayashi, Morii, Yamamoto, and Shimotani teaches all the limitations of claim 7, upon which this claim is dependent.
Fukubayashi further teaches:
wherein the vehicle control device is configured to reserve a start time of the update for a non-urgent update after charging is completed (the updating timing determination unit 14 may determine a timing at which an update program is executed so that an updating process can be completed during standby in the schedule, on the basis of the charging and discharging schedule and the updating time information [0090]).
Regarding claim 11:
Lee in view of Fukubayashi, Morii, Yamamoto, and Shimotani teaches all the limitations of claim 8, upon which this claim is dependent.
Fukubayashi further teaches:
wherein the vehicle control device is configured to reserve a start time of the update for a non-urgent update after charging is completed (the updating timing determination unit 14 may determine a timing at which an update program is executed so that an updating process can be completed during standby in the schedule, on the basis of the charging and discharging schedule and the updating time information [0090]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Poll (US 2022/0176939) discloses An electrified vehicle having an electric machine coupled to a traction battery to selectively propel the vehicle and associated method for the electrified vehicle include receiving trip data from an external server, the trip data including a plurality of road segments of a selected route from a starting location to a destination, each road segment having an associated energy consumption and distance, calculating a distance-to-empty (DTE) based on a remaining trip distance to the destination, available energy of the traction battery, an estimated traction battery energy required for the remaining trip distance, and an overall vehicle efficiency, the estimated traction battery energy being based on a combination of the received segment energy consumption and distance of each remaining segment in the trip, and communicating the DTE to a display within the electrified vehicle to reduce fluctuations in displayed DTE during travel along routes with nonlinear energy consumption (changing energy efficiency).
Kumar (US 2018/0188695) discloses In one aspect, an apparatus for scheduling are provided. The apparatus may detect a user activity. The apparatus may estimate a finish time of the user activity. In response to determining the estimated finish time falls behind the start time of a scheduled event, the apparatus may issue an alert about a conflict of the activity with the scheduled event. In another aspect, an apparatus for managing activities are provided. The apparatus may receive a navigation request to a destination and an indication to participate in a phone call while traveling to the destination. The apparatus may provide a route from the current location of the user to the destination. The apparatus may estimate wireless communication coverage conditions along the route. The apparatus may further issue an alert about zones of wireless communication coverage weaker than a threshold based on the wireless communication coverage conditions along the route.
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 Scott R Jagolinzer whose telephone number is (571)272-4180. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8AM - 4PM Eastern.
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, Christian Chace can be reached at (571)272-4190. 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.
Scott R. Jagolinzer
Examiner
Art Unit 3665
/S.R.J./Examiner, Art Unit 3665 /CHRISTIAN CHACE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3665