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 .
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 1 and 6-8 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.
Regarding independent claims 1 and 8, the Examiner feels the language regarding “when the desired condition for use recognized satisfies all of a predetermined first condition for selection to a predetermined fourth condition for selection” is not what is taught in the Applicant’s specification, particularly in [0030]. This paragraph fails to explicitly teach the claimed subject matter of a desired condition for use satisfying ALL of the first through fourth conditions. Additionally, if the claim language was actually what was taught in the specification, the Examiner is unsure what happens if/when one electricity provider’s doesn’t satisfy all four conditions (i.e. one provider’s condition has the highest desired rental fee and a different provider’s condition has the longest desired period of use).
The Examiner will interpret this claim language to mean that these four conditions are each possible conditions used to select which provider’s condition for use is selected. The Examiner requests the Applicant clarify their position and point out where the claim language is explicitly taught in the specification.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Katanoda (2019/0202292) and Kamen et al. (2011/0025267).
Regarding independent claims 1 and 8, Katanoda teaches a battery management system and method comprising a processor/computer (70), wherein the processor:
performs communication, via a communication network (dotted lines of Fig. 1), with a vehicle control device (inside 70), a charge-discharge equipment (50), a communication terminal (66; [0041], [0042]) used by a vehicle user, and a management system (not shown that communicates with cloud server) of each of a plurality of electricity providers (“electricity-demanding facility”); and
virtually divides a capacity of a battery, which is mounted on a vehicle and which is charged with electricity supplied from the charge-discharge equipment and which supplies electricity to the charge-discharge equipment, via a charge-discharge cable (connected to 51), into a first capacity (Sbt) and a second capacity (Sbs), and makes the battery available to the vehicle with the first capacity (for travel) and makes the battery available to the electricity provider within the second capacity (for feeding) by allocating the first capacity for discharge or regenerative charge accompanying electricity consumption by the vehicle, and charging from the charge-discharge equipment based on an operation by the user, and allocating the second capacity for charge as a buffer against electricity generated by an electricity generation facility connected to the charge-discharge equipment via an electricity grid, and discharge to supply electricity to the electricity grid ([0031]-[0033], [0036], [0037]), wherein:
the processor receives, via the communication network, desired use condition information presenting a desired condition for use of the battery within the second capacity and recognizes the desired condition for use, the desired use condition information being transmitted from an electricity provider who desires to use the battery within the second capacity (2nd half of [0024], [0036]), and
when the desired condition for use recognized satisfies a condition for selection (based on user design choice), allows the electricity provider that presents the desired condition for use that satisfies the condition for selection to use the battery at the second capacity ([0041]-[0046]);
and wherein the processor further determines an allocation ratio between the first capacity (Sbt) and the second capacity (Sbs) of the vehicle battery according to the desired condition for use of the selected electricity provider, and makes the vehicle control device perform charge-discharge control based on the allocation ratio ([0041]-[0046]).
Katanoda fails to explicitly teach a plurality of electricity providers presenting their desired use condition information to use the battery within the second capacity. Kamen teaches a similar battery management system to that of Katanoda. Kamen teaches the idea of a plurality of electricity providers each providing their desired use condition information to use the battery within a second capacity ([0062], [0063]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to allow a plurality of electricity providers to provide their desired use condition information to the vehicle user to allow the vehicle user to have more options to “sell” their battery capacity to, which would allow for a bidding war and potentially a higher sales price and more money for the vehicle user.
Katanoda and Kamen teach the desired use condition information comprising a quantity and a unit price (i.e. rental fee; Katanoda at [0053]) and a desired period of use (i.e. time needed to transfer energy; Kamen at [0062]-[0064] and [0072]). They fail to explicitly teach the precise conditions for selection claimed. However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have the conditions for selection be the claimed conditions for selection, since the applicant hasn’t disclosed that selecting any specific condition solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with other conditions for selection based on each user’s desired choice for their particular second capacity of their vehicle battery.
Regarding claim 6, Katanoda teaches a condition that after use of the vehicle by the vehicle user is started (i.e. leaving home; Fig. 4), when the processor recognizes the desired condition for use presenting a desired capacity of the second capacity (S100; [0033]) that necessitates a decrease in the capacity of the first capacity, the processor transmits capacity decrease confirmation information to the communication terminal (user interface/display, 66) used by the vehicle user (S140; [0036], [0037]) and receives capacity decrease approval information transmitted from the communication terminal in response to reception of the capacity decrease confirmation information (S170, S180; [0041]-[0043]) is set as a fifth condition for selection, the capacity decrease confirmation information inquiring whether or not to approve of a decrease in the capacity of the first capacity (based on user design choice), the capacity decrease approval information indicating approval of the decrease in the capacity of the first capacity.
Regarding claim 7, Katanoda teaches the processor relaxes at least one of the conditions for selection when the desired condition for use that satisfies the condition for selection is not recognized (based on user input by changing the condition for selection; [0041], [0042]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed February 12, 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of the claim(s) 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 Katanoda and Kamen.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DRU M PARRIES whose telephone number is (571)272-8542. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday -Thursday from 9:00am to 6:00pm. The examiner can also be reached on alternate Fridays.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Rexford Barnie, can be reached on 571-272-7492. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
DMP
2/27/2026
/DANIEL KESSIE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2836