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 .
Status of Claims
This Office Action is in response to the application filed on November 5, 2024. Claims 1-14 are pending. Claims 1, 6 and 11 are independent.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. JP2023-191335, filed on 11/09/2023.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/05/2024 and 06/27/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 limitations are:
electrical energy generation amount prediction unit in claims 1 and 4.
residual amount acquisition unit in claim 1.
travel schedule acquisition unit in claim 1.
plan creation unit in claims 1-5.
charging control unit in claim 1.
determination unit in claim 4.
In claims 1 and 4, the limitation “electrical energy generation amount prediction unit” has been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses a generic placeholder “unit” coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
In claim 1, the limitation “residual amount acquisition unit” has been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses a generic placeholder “unit” coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
In claim 1, the limitation “travel schedule acquisition unit” has been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses a generic placeholder “unit” coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
In claims 1-5, the limitation “plan creation unit” has been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses a generic placeholder “unit” coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
In claim 1, the limitation “charging control unit” has been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses a generic placeholder “unit” coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
In claim 4, the limitation “determination unit” has been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses a generic placeholder “unit” coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
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.
In claims 1 and 4, the limitation “electrical energy generation amount prediction unit” is disclosed as electrical energy generation amount prediction unit 61 in figure 1, paragraph 20 of the specification filed.
In claim 1, the limitation “residual amount acquisition unit” is disclosed as residual amount acquisition unit 62 in figure 1, paragraph 21 of the specification filed.
In claim 1, the limitation “travel schedule acquisition unit” is disclosed as travel schedule acquisition unit 63 in figure 1, paragraph 22 of the specification filed.
In claims 1-5, the limitation “plan creation unit” is disclosed plan creation unit 64 in figure 1, paragraph 23 of the specification filed.
In claim 1, the limitation “charging control unit” is disclosed as charging control unit 65 in figure 1, paragraph 29 of the specification filed.
In claim 4, the limitation “determination unit” is disclosed as determination unit 64B in figure 1, paragraph 26 of the specification filed.
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 § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 6-8 and 11-12, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kobayashi (US-20120161692-A1).
Regarding claim 1, Kobayashi teaches an electrical energy supply system (see Kobayashi, Abstract, figure 1, paragraph 43, regarding an arrangement of a charging control system, exemplary of an electrical energy supply system) comprising:
a photovoltaic power generation device (see Kobayashi, figure 1, paragraph 53, regarding solar cell 24 of facility 20, exemplary of a photovoltaic power generation device);
charging devices each of which is connected to the photovoltaic power generation device, is configured to be connectable to an electric vehicle with an on-vehicle battery mounted thereon, and charges the on-vehicle battery of the connected electric vehicle with electrical energy generated by the photovoltaic power generation device (see Kobayashi, figure 1, paragraphs 2-3 and 12, regarding pipelined solar cell 24 (photovoltaic power generation device) of facility 20 configured via (connectable) plurality of charger 29’s “for charging vehicle-purpose batteries which are mounted on (on-vehicle) electrically-driven vehicles (30) by employing chargers”);
an electrical energy generation amount prediction unit that predicts an electrical energy generation amount generated by the photovoltaic power generation device (see Kobayashi, figure 1, paragraphs 24 and 133-134, regarding electric power situation monitoring unit 111 of charging control apparatus 10 that “predicts a charging condition of either the present time instant or a time instant before the present time instant” and “When the charging plan is produced, in S1020b, the electric power situation monitoring unit 111 may define (determine) the supplyable electric power amount of the facility 20”, wherein the “supplyable electric power amounts (of facility 20 are) from the (the power distribution network via) power receiving apparatus and the facility-purpose battery, and/or the solar cell (photovoltaic power)”);
a residual amount acquisition unit that acquires a residual electrical energy amount of the on-vehicle battery in each of the electric vehicles (see Kobayashi, figures 1-3, paragraphs 62, regarding “the electric power situation monitoring unit 111 acquires charging conditions (charging condition information 121) of the respective chargers 29 and vehicle-purpose battery remaining capacities of the respective electrically-driven vehicles 30 from the electric power monitoring apparatus 21 of the facility 20, and the respective electrically-driven vehicles 30 (S1010)”, wherein the electric power situation monitoring unit 111 and charging condition information 121 of charging control apparatus 10 performs the function of a residual amount acquisition unit);
a travel schedule acquisition unit that acquires a travel schedule of each of the electric vehicles (see Kobayashi, figures 1 and 6A, paragraphs 20 and 106-107, regarding charging control apparatus 10 components electric power situation monitoring unit 111 and charging condition information 121 with travel schedule information of time (1219b), charge condition (1211b) and drivable distance (1215b) for each vehicle, performing the function of a travel schedule acquisition unit);
a plan creation unit that, based on the electrical energy generation amount predicted by the electrical energy generation amount prediction unit, the residual electrical energy amount of each of the on-vehicle batteries acquired by the residual amount acquisition unit, and the travel schedule of each of the electric vehicles acquired by the travel schedule acquisition unit, creates a distribution plan when the on-vehicle battery of each of the electric vehicles is charged with the electrical energy generated by the photovoltaic power generation device (see Kobayashi, figures 6B and 10, paragraphs 21, 115-117, 132 and 149, regarding electric power situation monitoring unit 111, charging condition information 121 and step S1400b (FORM CHARGING PLAN), exemplary of a charging plan setting method performing a function of a (charging) plan creation unit); and
a charging control unit that controls the charging devices to charge the electric vehicles based on the distribution plan created by the plan creation unit (see Kobayashi, figure 1, paragraph 56, regarding “charging control apparatus 10 acquires situation information of a vehicle-purpose battery of an electrically-driven vehicle 30 without via the electric power monitoring apparatus 21 and the charger 29 from the electrically-driven vehicle 30 coupled to the network 50, and instructs (controls) a charging start and a charging stop of the vehicle-purpose battery with respect to the electrically-driven vehicle 30”, exemplary of a charging control unit).
Regarding claim 2, Kobayashi teaches the electrical energy supply system according to claim 1, including wherein
the plan creation unit predicts an electrical energy amount necessary to charge the on-vehicle battery of each of the electric vehicles to perform the travel schedule, and creates the distribution plan to maximize the number of the electric vehicles whose on-vehicle batteries are charged with an electrical energy amount equal to or more than the predicted necessary electrical energy amount before a scheduled use start time (see Kobayashi, figure 4, paragraph 71-75, regarding steps S2020 thru S2140, of total value “P” of the electric power consumption amounts of all the electrically-driven vehicles 30 coupled to the chargers 29 is calculated (predicted)).
Regarding claim 3, Kobayashi teaches the electrical energy supply system according to claim 1, including wherein
the plan creation unit includes a first plan creation unit that creates the distribution plan to charge the on-vehicle battery of each of the electric vehicles in a range of less than or equal to a standard electrical energy storage amount that is smaller than an electrical energy storage amount in a fully-charged state (see Kobayashi, figures 5, paragraphs 61 and 79-80, regarding steps S3020 thru S3140, exemplary of plan creation wherein on-vehicle battery charging is terminated on a vehicle before reaching a set charging level S1000 (standard electrical energy storage amount smaller than an electrical energy storage amount in a fully charged state).
Regarding claim 6-8, independent claim 6 is a non-transient computer-readable medium recording a computer program configured to cause a computer to perform the identical function of the electrical energy supply system of independent claim 1, and similarly, dependent claims 7-8 of independent claim 6 are also performing identical functions corresponding to dependent claims 2-3 of independent claim 1, respectively, therefore, claims 6-8 are also rejected under 35 USC § 102 for the same rationale as claims 1-3, respectively.
Regarding claim 11-12, independent claim 11 is a method for charging on-vehicle batteries of electric vehicles by charging devices connected to a photovoltaic power generation device, the method comprising the identical function of the electrical energy supply system of independent claim 1, and similarly, dependent claim 12 of independent claim 11 is also performing identical functions corresponding to dependent claims 2 of independent claim 1, therefore, claims 11-12 are also rejected under 35 USC § 102 for the same rationale as claims 1-2, respectively.
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.
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.
Claims 5, 10 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobayashi (US-20120161692-A1).
Regarding claim 5, Kobayashi teaches the electrical energy supply system according to claim 1, excluding wherein
in a case where a predicted atmospheric temperature at a scheduled use start time of each of the electric vehicles is higher than a predetermined reference temperature, the plan creation unit sets a scheduled charge end time for a scheduled use start time so as to be earlier than in a case where the predicted atmospheric temperature is lower than the predetermined reference temperature.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicant’s effective filing date to utilize weather forecasting information for improving/optimizing photovoltaic power generation by adjusting (modifying) solar capture start time in advance (earlier than) when the atmospheric temperature is sufficiently predicted to be higher than a predetermined reference temperature that solar panel energy production is less than planned/targeted and analogous to adjusting capture start time based on solar irradiance deterioration due to adverse cloud coverage forecast.
Regarding claim 10, independent claim 6 is a non-transient computer-readable medium recording a computer program configured to cause a computer to perform the identical function of the electrical energy supply system of independent claim 1, and similarly, dependent claim 10 of independent claim 6 is also performing identical function corresponding to dependent claim 5 of independent claim 1, therefore, claim 10 is also rejected under 35 USC § 103 for the same rationale as claim 5.
Regarding claim 14, independent claim 11 is a method for charging on-vehicle batteries of electric vehicles by charging devices connected to a photovoltaic power generation device, the method comprising the identical function of the electrical energy supply system of independent claim 1, and similarly, dependent claim 14 of independent claim 11 is also performing identical function corresponding to dependent claim 5 of independent claim 1, therefore, claim 14 is also rejected under 35 USC § 103 for the same rationale as claim 5.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 9 and 13 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.
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see the attached form PTO-892.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETER NING whose telephone number is (408) 918-7664. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday and alternate Fridays, 7:30-4:30 PT.
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, Peter D. Nolan can be reached at (571) 270-7016. 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.
/P.Y.N./Examiner, Art Unit 3661
February 6, 2026
/PETER D NOLAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3661