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 .
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 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.
Introduction
Claims 1, 2, 10, 13, and 16-21 are pending and have been examined in this Office Action. Claims 3-9, 11, 12, 14, and 15 have been canceled and claims 17-21 have been added since the last Office Action.
Examiner’s Note
Examiner has cited particular paragraphs / columns and line numbers or figures in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. Applicant is reminded that the Examiner is entitled to give the broadest reasonable interpretation to the language of the claims. Furthermore, the Examiner is not limited to Applicants' definition which is not specifically set forth in the disclosure.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1, 2, 10, 13, and 17-21 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "a charger" in line 23. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is indefinite if this is a new limitation or intended to refer back to a previous limitation.
Claim(s) 2, 10, 13, and 17-21 is/are rejected because it/they depend(s) from claim 1 and fail(s) to cure the deficiencies above.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "a travel path" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is indefinite if this is a new limitation or intended to refer back to a previous limitation. The Office recommends “an additional travel path”.
Claim(s) 18, 19, and 21 is/are rejected because it/they depend(s) from claim 2 and fail(s) to cure the deficiencies above.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the chargers" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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, 2, 10, 13, and 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication 2019/0016312 to Carlson et al. in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2015/0343912 to McNally.
As per claim 1, Carlson discloses a control system (Carlson; At least the abstract) comprising:
one or more processors (Carlson; At least paragraph(s) 100); and
one or more memories coupled to the one or more processors, the one or more processors being configured to execute processing comprising (Carlson; At least paragraph(s) 100):
acquiring dimension information indicating a dimension of a vehicle entering a charging station (Carlson; At least paragraph(s) 77 and 86);
generating travel path information indicating a travel path for the vehicle to travel in the charging station from an entrance gate of the charging station to a charger in the charging station, based on the dimension information (Carlson; At least paragraph(s) 77), coordinate data indicating a position of the entrance gate of the charging station and a position of the charger, a positional relationship between a reference position of the vehicle and a reference position in the charging station, and information related to a position of a charging port of the vehicle, wherein the generating the travel path information comprises determining, based on the information related to the position of the charging port, a parking space from parking spaces provided on both sides of the charger in accordance with a side of the vehicle on which the charging port is disposed (Carlson; At least paragraph(s) 21, 30, 37, 38, 64, 73, 74, and 77, and figures 8 and 9; the vehicle is guided along various reference positions, i.e., waypoints adjusted for dimension and mechanical response of the vehicle, from the entrance, if a garage as discussed in paragraph(s) 21 or as seen in figure 9, to any available parking space such that vehicle is adjacent to the charger to accept the fuel interface), and generating the travel path information to guide the vehicle to the determined parking space (Carlson; At least paragraph(s) 77)
Carlson discloses guiding the vehicle adjacent to the charger to accept the fuel interface (Carlson; At least paragraph(s) 77), which would be within the movable range of the fuel interface, i.e., charging gun, but does not explicitly disclose such that the charging port of the vehicle is located within a movable range of a charging gun of the charger when the vehicle stops in the determined parking space; and
However, the above feature(s) are taught by McNally (McNally; At least paragraph(s) 8, 11, 28, 30, 41). At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have incorporated the teachings of McNally into the invention of Carlson with a reasonable expectation of success with the motivation of using a known technique to improve a similar device in the same way with predictable results. Determining the relative position of the vehicle with respect to the charger to ensure the charging gun will reach the charging port would allow the vehicle to ensure the parking spot is adequate and reduce repositioning resulting in reduced time and cost and improving user satisfaction, similar to that discussed in at least paragraph(s) 3 of McNally.
Carlson further discloses executing, based on the travel path information, first automatic travel control to control the vehicle to automatically travel from the entrance gate of the charging station to a charger in the charging station without intervention of a driver of the vehicle (Carlson; At least paragraph(s) 75).
As per claim 2, Carlson discloses wherein the one or more processors are configured to execute processing comprising generating additional travel path information indicating a travel path for the vehicle to travel from the charger to an exit gate of the charging station, and executing, based on the additional travel path information, second automatic travel control to control the vehicle to automatically travel from the charger to the exit gate of the charging station without the intervention of the driver of the vehicle (Carlson; At least paragraph(s) 55 and 78).
As per claim 10, Carlson discloses wherein the one or more processors are configured to execute processing comprising generating the travel path information, further based on information related to a battery of the vehicle (Carlson; At least paragraph(s) 79, 80, 86, and 87).
As per claim 13, Carlson discloses wherein the one or more processors are configured to execute processing comprising generating the travel path information, further based on information related to software used in the vehicle for charging (Carlson; At least paragraph(s) 79-81, 86, and 87).
As per claim 16, Carlson discloses a control device comprising:
one or more processors (Carlson; At least paragraph(s) 100); and
one or more memories coupled to the one or more processors (Carlson; At least paragraph(s) 100),
the one or more processors being configured to execute processing comprising executing first automatic travel control to control a vehicle entering a charging station to automatically travel from an entrance gate of the charging station to a charger in the charging station without intervention of a driver of the vehicle (Carlson; At least paragraph(s) 77),
the first automatic travel control being executed based on travel path information indicating a travel path for the vehicle to travel in the charging station from the entrance gate of the charging station to the charger in the charging station (Carlson; At least paragraph(s) 75 and 77),
the travel path information being generated based on dimension information indicating a dimension, coordinate data indicating a position of the entrance gate of the charging station and a position of the charger, a positional relationship between a reference position of the vehicle and a reference position in the charging station, and information related to a position of a charging port of the vehicle, the generating of the travel path information comprising determining, based on the information related to the position of the charging port, a parking space from parking spaces provided on both sides of the charger in accordance with a side of the vehicle on which the charging port is disposed, and generating the travel path information to guide the vehicle to the determined parking space (Carlson; At least paragraph(s) 21, 30, 37, 38, 64, 73, 74, and 77, and figure 9; the vehicle is guided along various reference positions, i.e., waypoints adjusted for dimension and mechanical response of the vehicle, from the entrance, if a garage as discussed in paragraph(s) 21 or as seen in figure 9, to any available parking space such that vehicle is adjacent to the charger to accept the fuel interface)
Carlson discloses guiding the vehicle adjacent to the charger to accept the fuel interface (Carlson; At least paragraph(s) 77), which would be within the movable range of the fuel interface, i.e., charging gun, but does not explicitly disclose such that the charging port of the vehicle is located within a movable range of a charging gun of the charger when the vehicle stops in the determined parking space.
However, the above feature(s) are taught by McNally (McNally; At least paragraph(s) 8, 11, 28, 30, 41). At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have incorporated the teachings of McNally into the invention of Carlson with a reasonable expectation of success with the motivation of using a known technique to improve a similar device in the same way with predictable results. Determining the relative position of the vehicle with respect to the charger to ensure the charging gun will reach the charging port would allow the vehicle to ensure the parking spot is adequate and reduce repositioning resulting in reduced time and cost and improving user satisfaction, similar to that discussed in at least paragraph(s) 3 of McNally.
As per claim 17, Carlson discloses the one or more processors are configured to execute processing comprising determining one of the chargers to which the vehicle is to be guided based on whether dimensions of the vehicle fit in parking spaces provided on both sides of each of the chargers and based on at least one of information related to a battery of the vehicle and information related to software used in the vehicle for charging, and generating the travel path information based on the determined charger (Carlson; At least paragraph(s) 74, 86, and 87).
As per claim 18, Carlson discloses notifying the driver at the beginning of travel so that the driver may exit the vehicle (Carlson; At least paragraph(s) 74), but does not explicitly disclose the one or more processors are configured to execute processing comprising, after completion of the second automatic travel control, notifying the driver of the completion of the second automatic travel control, and
At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have also notified the driver at the end of the charging and travel. This would allow the driver to know that charging is completed and that further travel can be started. Alerting the driver avoids wasted time and improves the user experience. Further, notifying the driver at the end is merely reperforming previous steps, which would be within the skill of one in the art.
Carlson further discloses executing third automatic travel control outside the charging station based on map data and information on latitude and longitude of a location of the vehicle (Carlson; At least paragraph(s) 44 and 85).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carlson, in view of McNally as applied to claim 2, and in further view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2018/0118219 to Hiei et al.
As per claim 19, Carlson discloses a vehicle that can be manually or autonomously driven (Carlson; At least paragraph(s) 42), but does not explicitly disclose the one or more processors are configured to execute processing comprising, before generating the travel path information and the additional travel path information, requesting permission from the driver of the vehicle to execute the first automatic travel control and the second automatic travel control in the charging station, and, in response to the driver giving no permission, allowing the driver to manually drive the vehicle in the charging station.
However, the above feature(s) are taught by Hiei (Hiei; At least paragraph(s) 63). At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have incorporated the teachings of Hiei into the invention of Carlson with a reasonable expectation of success with the motivation of using a known technique to improve a similar device in the same way with predictable results. If the driver, for any reason, wants to manually drive the vehicle, the driver can ignore the autonomous mode driving and manually drive the vehicle. Allowing the driver to choose autonomous or manual driving would provide a better user experience.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 20 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carlson, in view of McNally as applied to claim 1 and 2, and in further view of Chinese Patent Application Publication CN105437998 to Niu et al.
As per claims 20 and 21, Carlson discloses the system making a reservation at a charging station (Carlson; At least paragraph(s) 86), but does not explicitly disclose wherein the control system comprises an entrance [exit] gate disposed at an entrance [exit] of the charging station, and the one or more processors are configured to execute processing comprising controlling the entrance [exit] gate to change from a closed position to an open position to allow the vehicle to enter [exit] the charging station.
However, the above feature(s) are taught by Niu (Niu; At least the abstract). At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have incorporated the teachings of Niu into the invention of Carlson with a reasonable expectation of success with the motivation of using a known technique to improve a similar device in the same way with predictable results. Providing a gate that opens to allow entering and exiting of a vehicle with a reservation provides assurance that the request charger will be available and that unauthorized vehicle will not be occupying positions, as discussed in the abstract.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 9-10, filed 05/18/2026, with respect to objections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objections have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments, see pages 10-14, filed 05/18/2026, with respect to 35 U.S.C. 102/103 rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. With respect to Applicant's arguments that Carlson does not disclose the limitations of the independent claim, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Carlson discloses positional data of an entrance of a charging station and a charger (Carlson; At least paragraph(s) 25, 31, 36, and 60), a position of the vehicle relative to the reference positions (waypoints) (Carlson; At least paragraph(s) 30 and 58), information related to a position of the charging port (Carlson; At least paragraph(s) 77), and generating a travel path based on the information to a parking space near the charger (Carlson; At least paragraph(s) 77). Therefore, as shown and discussed in the rejection above, Carlson discloses the limitations as written. With respect to “a movable range of a charging gun”, this limitation is taught by McNally. With respect to Applicant's arguments regarding “a parking space from parking spaces provided on both sides of the charger”, this is a function of the charging station and outside the control of the control system. Carlson discloses determining available parking spaces and parking such that charging can be completed (Carlson; At least paragraph(s) 74 and 77) and would do so if there were space on either side of the charging station.
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 DAVID P MERLINO whose telephone number is (571)272-8362. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 5:30am-3:00pm F 5:30-9:00 am ET.
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 Bishop can be reached at 571-270-3713. 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.
/David P. Merlino/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3665
Prosecution Insights