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
The following is a Final Office Action in response to the communication filed on 07/02/2026. Claims 1 and 4—7 are currently pending.
Priority
The Applicant’s claim for benefit of Japanese Patent Application JP2023-204481 filed in the country of Japan on 12/04/2023, has been received and acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
Information Disclosure Statement received 11/19/2024 and 04/27/2026 have been reviewed and considered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments and amendments filed 07/02/2026 with respect to the objection of claim 1 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The claims have been revised such that the previously cited objection of claim 1 is moot. Accordingly, the objection to claim 1 is withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments and amendments filed 07/02/2026 with respect to the interpretation of the limitation “a control device” under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The claims have been revised such that the previously cited interpretation is moot. Accordingly, the invocation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) with respect to the claim term “a control device” is withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments and amendments filed 07/02/2026 with respect to the rejections of claims 1—5 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The claims have been revised such that the previously cited rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) are moot. Accordingly, the rejection of claims 1—5 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) is withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments and amendments filed 07/02/2026 with respect to the rejections of claims 1—5 under 35 U.S.C. 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The claims have been revised such that the previously cited rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102 are moot. Accordingly, the rejection of claims 1—5 under 35 U.S.C. 102 is withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments and amendments filed 07/02/2026 with respect to the rejections of claims 1—5 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The claims have been revised such that the previously cited rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 are moot. Accordingly, the rejection of claims 1—5 under 35 U.S.C. 103 is withdrawn.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1 and 4—6 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 5, and 6 of U.S. Patent No. US 12420653 B2 in view of Published US Patent Application (US 20210170900 A1) to Ando.
Aoki claims an inlet provided on a vehicle (claim 1; “a vehicle inlet to which a vehicle plug is connected, the vehicle plug allowing power transmission including at least one of external charging and external power feed”);
a battery provided on the vehicle (claim 1; “[a] vehicle comprising… a secondary battery”) and configured to supply power to an external device external to the vehicle (claim 1; “the vehicle plug allowing power transmission including at least one of external charging and external power feed”) via a connector (claim 1; “the vehicle plug”) configured to be attached to the inlet (claim 1; “a vehicle inlet to which a vehicle plug is connected”);
a locking device (claim 1; “an electronic lock”) configured to lock the connector to the inlet (claim 1; “an electronic lock that locks the vehicle inlet and the vehicle plug”); the power supply to the external device being stopped in response to the locking device being switched to an unlocked state (claim 5, which depends from claim 1; “regardless of the output in the power transmission, the vehicle controller controls the output in the power transmission to be equal to or lower than the prescribed value and releases locking by the electronic lock.”);
an electronic control unit (ECU) configured to control the locking device (claim 1; “a vehicle controller that controls the electronic lock”)… by outputting a control signal, wherein the ECU is further configured to perform operations including (see claims 1, 5, and 6):
determining whether the power is being supplied to the external device (claim 1; “when output in the power transmission is larger than a prescribed value at time of reception of a request for release of locking by the electronic lock”; “when output in the power transmission is equal to or lower than the prescribed value at the time of reception of the request for release of the locking by the electronic lock”);
upon determining that no power is supplied (claim 1; “when output in the power transmission is equal to or lower than the prescribed value”; this limitation is further modified below), outputting a control signal to the locking device to switch the locking device to an unlocked state (claim 1; “when output in the power transmission is equal to or lower than the prescribed value at the time of reception of the request for release of the locking by the electronic lock from the user, the vehicle controller releases locking by the electronic lock.”) upon an operation of an unlock button of a door of the vehicle being performed (claim 5; “the request for release of locking by the electronic lock includes a first request and a second request different from the first request”; claim 6; “the first request is a request for release of locking by the electronic lock in coordination with unlocking of the vehicle door, and the second request is a request for release of locking by the electronic lock based on pressing of an unlocking button provided in the vehicle plug.”); and
upon determining that the power is being supplied, maintaining the locking device in the locked state (claim 5; “when the output in the power transmission is larger than the prescribed value at the time of reception of the first request from the user, the vehicle controller prohibits release of locking by the electronic lock.”) even though the operation of the unlock button is performed without satisfying a connector unlock condition during power supply (claim 1; “when output in the power transmission is larger than a prescribed value at time of reception of a request for release of locking by the electronic lock from a user, the vehicle controller prohibits release of locking by the electronic lock”); and
outputting a control signal to the power conversion device to stop the power supply (claim 5; “at the time of reception of the second request from the user, regardless of the output in the power transmission, the vehicle controller controls the output in the power transmission to be equal to or lower than the prescribed value and releases locking by the electronic lock.”), and
outputting a control signal to the locking device to switch the locking device to the unlocked state (claim 5; “at the time of reception of the second request from the user, regardless of the output in the power transmission, the vehicle controller controls the output in the power transmission to be equal to or lower than the prescribed value and releases locking by the electronic lock.”), upon the connector unlock condition during power supply being satisfied (see previous citation to claim 5), wherein the connector unlock condition during power supply is satisfied upon the operation of the unlock button of the door of the vehicle being performed a plurality of times, or upon an unlock operation of the connector in a terminal device being performed (claim 6; “the second request is a request for release of locking by the electronic lock based on pressing of an unlocking button provided in the vehicle plug.”).
While issued claims 1, 5, and 6 of US 12420653 B2 to Aoki recites large portions of claim 1, as indentified above, the claims alone fail to recite:
“a power conversion device” (e.g., configured to be controlled by the electronic control unit); and
a specific power threshold of zero for unlocking the lock device (e.g., as discussed above, the prescribed threshold for the power transmission which is used in determining how to control the lock is generic rather than specific)
The disclosure from which claims 1, 5, and 6 were issued (e.g., US 12420653 B2 to Aoki) discloses the deficient power conversion device of item 1. For example, FIG. 1 of Aoki depicts a direct-current (DC)/alternating-current (AC) converter 30 which is configured in the same manner as recited in claim 1 to perform the same function as recited in claim 1. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the claimed apparatus of Aoki to include the disclosed power conversion device of Aoki in order to generate the predictable result of a charging apparatus capable of converting direct current to alternating current.
While Aoki discloses utilizing a prescribed power transmission threshold in determining whether to unlock the vehicle charging plug, Aoki may not explicitly that the threshold is zero power (e.g., charging current at zero). However, Ando, which is in the same field of endeavor as the instant application insofar as it is directed to a locking device for a charge port on an electric vehicle, teaches the deficient limitation (e.g., confirming the charging current is at zero before unlocking the plug). For example, Ando teaches at para. [0051] teaches “[s]ubsequently, ECU 170 controls charging device 130 to limit the charging current (step S116), and controls connector lock device 111 to set charging connector 210 to the unlocked state (step S117). For example, the charging current may be decreased to a predetermined current, or may be decreased by a predetermined ratio. It should be noted that the charging current may be limited to zero (0).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Aoki such that the generically recited threshold current required for unlocking the charging plug was set to a current of zero (e.g., as taught by Ando). Utilizing a current of zero as a precursor for unlocking a charging plug was known in the art, as taught by Ando such that the generically recited threshold of Aoki could be replaced with the specific current recited by Ando. The substitution would generate the predictable result of providing for a known current value which is utilized prior to unlocking a charging plug from a charging port of a vehicle.
Regarding claim 4, Aoki modified by Ando teach wherein the ECU is further configured to execute a process of indicating an operation (the vehicle controller sends a signal to reduce the power transmission below the prescribed value) necessary to switch the locking device to the unlocked state upon the operation of the unlock button being performed (claim 5; “the request for release of locking by the electronic lock includes a first request and a second request different from the first request”; claim 6; “the second request is a request for release of locking by the electronic lock based on pressing of an unlocking button provided in the vehicle plug”) in a state in which the power is being supplied and the locking device is in the locked state (claim 5; “at the time of reception of the second request from the user, regardless of the output in the power transmission, the vehicle controller controls the output in the power transmission to be equal to or lower than the prescribed value and releases locking by the electronic lock.”).
Claim 5 is disclosed by the limitations of claims 1 and 5 of Aoki and therefore subject to the double patenting rejection of Aoki modified by Ando.
Regarding claim 6, the disclosure of Aoki states “DC/AC converter 30 converts DC power in battery 20 into AC power. AC power from the DC/AC converter is thus supplied to home electrical appliance 900 through vehicle plug 120.” (Aoki, Col. 4, Lines 64—67). Accordingly, claim 6 is subject to the double patenting rejection.
Claim 7 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 5, and 6 of U.S. Patent No. US 12420653 B2 in view of Published US Patent Application (US 20210170900 A1) to Ando and Published US Patent Application (US 20160229411 A1) to Murata.
Aoki modified by Ando may not disclose the limitations of claim 7; however, Murata, which is in the same field of endeavor insofar as it is directed to a power storage system, teaches the deficient limitation. For example, Murata teaches wherein the external device operates on AC 100V (Murata, para. [0127], “[w]here the external power supply EP is a low-voltage system, such as a commercial power supply (AC100, AC200)…”). Moreover, Murata implies that systems which operate on AC100V are common insofar as they function on commercial power supply.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have replaced the generically recited external device with an external device which operates on a current which is common to commercial power supply. The substitution of the specific current for the device would generate the predictable result of an external device which operations on commercial power supply (e.g., AC100V).
Subject Matter without a Prior Art Rejection
Claims 1 and 4—7 are not subject to a prior art rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102 or 35 U.S.C. 103. The claims are not currently in condition for allowance due to a double patenting rejection as provided above; however, the specific limitations and associated configurations as recited in the instant claims were not found in the prior art at the time of examination.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 URSULA NORRIS whose telephone number is (703)756-4731. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 7 AM to 4 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, TARA SCHIMPF can be reached at 571-270-7741. 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.
/U.L.N./Examiner, Art Unit 3676
/TARA SCHIMPF/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3676
