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 non-final, first office action in response to the communication filed on 11/19/2024. Claims 1—5 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 has been reviewed and considered.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 1 recites “the control device is configured to perform control so as to switch…” however, as presented, the limitation should like be amended to recite “the control device is configured to: perform control so as to switch…”. Appropriate correction is requested
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 limitation(s) is/are: “a control device” as recited in claims 1—5. For example, the claim element “a control device” is equivalent to reciting “a device for controlling,” where “device” is a nonce term and “controlling” is a function. As recited in claim 1, the limitations directed to the control device are exclusively directed to the function of the control device and do not recite any structure(s) for the control device. Based on the instant application, it is understood that the “control device” is an electronic control unit (e.g., ECU 100; see para. [0083] of instant application) which may further comprise either computer components (e.g., processor, memory) or electronic circuitry (e.g., see para. [0038] of instant application). As such, the “control device” is interpreted as consisting of: computer components, electronic circuitry, and equivalents thereof.
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.
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 § 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—5 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.
The preamble of claim 1 states “a control device for locking a device that fixes a connector to an inlet of a vehicle.” As such, the claim is understood to be directed to a control device. However, extensive portions of the claim, including every limitation which recites structure, are directed to components which are not the control device. For example, the connector, vehicle, external device, locking device, and power supply are elements recited in the claim which do not constitute part of the control device (e.g., the apparatus to which the claim is directed). The inclusion of extensive limitations directed to components which are not the claimed apparatus obfuscates the metes and bounds of the claim insofar as the preamble is directed to an apparatus (e.g., a control device), but the claim appears to describe a system (e.g., a system comprising a control device, a locking device, and a power source). As such, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear therefore rendering the claim indefinite.
In view of the foregoing, the only limitations which are correctly directed to the subject matter of the preamble are those which are directed to the control device. The identified limitations are as follows: “a control device… wherein… control is performed so as to switch the locking device to an unlocked state,” and “the control device is configured to: perform control so as to switch the locking device to the unlocked state… and maintain the locking device in the locked state…”. In order to benefit compact prosecution, all claim limitations have been considered and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as provided below.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the connector includes a connector that supplies power to an external device external to the vehicle,” where the recitation of “a connector,” is improper with respect to antecedent basis and renders the claim indefinite. For example, it is unclear what the relationship is between “the connector” and “a connector”, and the manner in which the limitations are drafted indicate that they are different elements. While the claim is rendered indefinite for the foregoing reasons, for the purposes of examination “the connector” and “a connector” are understood to be the same element.
Claim 1 recites “power supply to the external device is stopped when control is performed so as to switch the locking device to an unlocked state while power is supplied with the locking device in the lock state.” The utilization of “when” and “while” as provided above, obfuscates the metes and bounds of the claim. For example, it is unclear whether the control performed to the lock causes the power supply to stop or if the power supply just happens to be stopped when the control is performed. The limitation reciting “while power is supplied with the locking device in the locked state” is additionally unclear insofar as the limitation could either be directed to an action taken at the same time or in juxtaposition. As such, the relationships between the elements in the limitation cited above are unclear in a manner which renders the claim indefinite. The limitations of “perform control… while no power is supplied in the locked state” and “maintain the locking device… while power is supplied in the locked state,” are drafted in a similar manner (e.g., using “when” and “while”) and are indefinite for the same reasons as provided above. Claims 2—5 include similar drafting style which should likewise be amended.
With continued regards for claim 1, the claim element “a control device” was identified to include a computer and/or electronic circuitry as described above. Claim 1 recites the limitation “the control device is configured to perform control so as to switch the locking device to the unlocked state.” Examiner notes that computer processors and circuitry are not able to directly and physically control or adjust a physical object such as a locking device. Instead the computer sends signals to achieve the intended task. Claim 1 should be amended to recite the correct manner in which the control takes place.
Claims 2—5 depend from claim 1 and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for depending from a rejected base claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 1—5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Published US Patent Application to Ando hereinafter Ando ‘900 (US 20210170900 A1).
As addressed above, the only limitations which are aligned with the preamble of the claim are those that are directed to the control device rather than the system in which it operates. Ando 900’ fully discloses the features of the control device as follows:
Regarding claim 1, Ando ‘900 discloses [a] control device (ECU 170) for a locking device that fixes a connector to an inlet of a vehicle, wherein:… the control device is configured to perform control so as to: switch the locking device to the unlocked state (para. [0051], “ECU 170… controls connector lock device 111 to set charging connector 210 to the unlocked state (step S117).”) when a first operation (calculating and displaying remaining charging time, see FIG. 3) is performed while no power is supplied in the locked state (para. [0051], “[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).” Please see labelled FIG. 3 as provided below which depicts various combinations of locking, charging, and calculating/displaying remaining time. Examiner notes that charging current i2 may include a charging current of zero. As such, the configuration of Section 2 reads on the foregoing limitation), and maintain the locking device in the locked state when the first operation is performed while power is supplied in the locked state (See Section 1 and Section 3 of FIG. 3 provided below where the charging current i1 is greater than zero, the connector is in the locked state, and the remaining charge time is continuously being calculated).
Ando ‘900 further discloses control is performed so as to switch the locking device to an unlocked state (see FIG. 3, the transition between Section 1 and Section 2 shows control performed to unlock the connector) while power is supplied with the locking device in a locked state (see FIG. 3, the charging connector is locked and the charging current is providing power until t1 after which, control is performed and the charging connector is unlocked).
PNG
media_image1.png
461
621
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Ando ‘900 dislcoses [t]he control device… wherein the control device performs control so as to switch the locking device to the unlocked state (para. [0043], “unlocks a connector”) when a second operation (para. [0043], “unlocking of a door”) different from the first operation (calculating and displaying estimated time) is performed while power is supplied in the locked state (para. [0043], “[t]here is also provided a charging system that unlocks a connector in cooperation with the unlocking of a door and stops charging.” Examiner notes unlocking the door causes the charging connector to unlock and reduces the charging current to zero where it was previously charging.).
Regarding claim 3, Ando ‘900 discloses [t]he control device… wherein the control device performs control (see the transition between Section 1 and Section 2 as provided in FIG. 3 above) so as to switch the locking device to the unlocked state (the charging connector transitions from the locked ins Section 1 to unlocked state in Section 2) when the first operation is performed a plurality of times (calculating the remaining charge is continuously being performed in Section 1 and is therefore performed a plurality of times) while power is supplied in the locked state (See Section 1 where charging current is greater than zero and the charging connector is locked.).
Regarding claim 4, Ando ‘900 discloses [t]he control device… wherein the control device executes a process of indicating an operation (blinking; para. [0055], “when ECU 170 determines that the charging current is limited (YES in step S132), ECU 170 reads the remaining charging time stored in step S115 from the memory (step S135), controls DCM 160 to transmit information for displaying the read remaining charging time in a blinking manner.”) necessary to switch the locking device to the unlocked state (as discussed in para. [0051], the charging connector is unlocked in the event that the charging current is limited) when the first operation is performed while power is supplied in the locked state (Section 1 shows power supplied in the locked state while the remaining charge time is being calculated. Control is performed at t1 which executes the blinking screen which occurs when the system transitions to the unlocked state.).
Regarding claim 5, Ando ‘900 discloses wherein the control device (ECU 170) performs control so as to switch the locking device to the unlocked state (para. [0051], “ECU 170… controls connector lock device 111 to set charging connector 210 to the unlocked state (step S117).”) when the second operation is performed (para. [0049]—[0051], “ECU 170 determines whether or not an operation for unlocking door lock device 180 is performed by the user (step S111). When ECU 170 determines that the operation for unlocking the door is performed (YES in step S111), ECU 170 controls door lock device 180 to switch to the unlocking state (step S112)… Subsequently, 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).”) while no power is supplied in the locked state (para. [0051], “ECU 170 controls charging device 130 to limit the charging current (step S116). The charging may be limited to zero).
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.
Claim(s) 1—5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Published US Patent Application to Ando hereinafter Ando ‘900 (US 20210170900 A1) in view of Published US Patent Application to Ando et al., hereinafter Ando ‘610 (US 20210245610 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Ando ‘900 discloses [a] control device (ECU 170) for a locking device that fixes a connector to an inlet of a vehicle, wherein:… the control device is configured to perform control so as to: switch the locking device to the unlocked state (para. [0051], “ECU 170… controls connector lock device 111 to set charging connector 210 to the unlocked state (step S117).”) when a first operation (calculating and displaying remaining charging time, see FIG. 3) is performed while no power is supplied in the locked state (para. [0051], “[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).” Please see labelled FIG. 3 as provided below which depicts various combinations of locking, charging, and calculating/displaying remaining time. Examiner notes that charging current i2 may include a charging current of zero. As such, the configuration of Section 2 reads on the foregoing limitation), and maintain the locking device in the locked state when the first operation is performed while power is supplied in the locked state (See Section 1 and Section 3 of FIG. 3 provided below where the charging current i1 is greater than zero, the connector is in the locked state, and the remaining charge time is continuously being calculated).
Ando ‘900 further discloses control is performed so as to switch the locking device to an unlocked state (see FIG. 3, the transition between Section 1 and Section 2 shows control performed to unlock the connector) while power is supplied with the locking device in a locked state (see FIG. 3, the charging connector is locked and the charging current is providing power until t1 after which, control is performed and the charging connector is unlocked).
PNG
media_image1.png
461
621
media_image1.png
Greyscale
While Ando ‘900 fully discloses the control device as set forth in claim 1, Ando ‘900 may recite the specific system configuration in which the control device is used. Regarding the system elements, Ando ‘900 discloses a control device (ECU 170), a locking device (locking device 111), a connector (charging connector 210), and a power supply (external power supply 400). However, Ando ‘900 is utilized in a system where a vehicle 100 is charged by an external power source 300 (please see FIG. 1). In comparison, the claim is focused on a system where a power source of the vehicle is used to charge an apparatus which is external to the car. To this end, Examiner notes that, with the exception of the external power source, all of the elements claimed above are part of the vehicle including ECU 170 which controls the locking device 111, door lock device 180, and charging device 130 (and power storage device 120 by extension). Ando ‘900 at para. [0035] further states “[p]ower storage device 120 is a chargeable/dischargeable power storage component. Power storage device 120 includes a secondary battery...”. Given that the power storage device of Ando ‘900 is dischargable, it may be used to charge an apparatus external to the car including a second battery if that battery were removable.
While Ando ‘900 contains all of the necessary components to read on the claim elements of claim 1, Ando ‘900 does not teach a vehicle which is charging an external power source. However, Published US Patent Application to Ando ‘610, which is in the same field of endeavor as the instant application insofar as it is directed to a vehicle system which is capable of charging an external device, teaches the above identified deficiencies. For example, Ando ‘610 teaches [a] control device (ECU 100) for a locking device (lock mechanism 206) that fixes a connector (para. [0095], “[w]hen ECU 100 determines based on the predetermined information that the power can be exchanged between the connector and battery 214, ECU 100 sets lock mechanism 206 to the lock state.”) to an inlet of a vehicle (vehicle 200), wherein: the connector includes a connector that supplies power to an external device external to the vehicle (Ando ‘610, para. [0005], “[a]n inlet may be provided with a lock mechanism that restricts removal of a connector (locks the connector) when the connector is attached to the inlet, to prevent the connector from being easily removed during a subsequent charging operation or discharging operation.”; para. [0013], “information indicating that the power to be exchanged between the connector and the power storage device is discharging power discharged from the power storage device.”; para. [0047], “[h]ere, an expression “power can be exchanged” indicates that at least one of charging or discharging is possible. That is, inlet 202 can receive supply of power to be used to charge battery 214, from the external facility. Further, inlet 202 enables supply (discharging) of power of battery 214 to the external facility.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Ando ‘900 such that it was configured to function in a scenario where energy is discharged from the battery to an external source, as described by Ando ‘610. The control device, to which the claim is directed, would work the same in either scenario where all of the components of the control device are part of the vehicle as identified above, and merely require modification of the power being discharged rather than received. The modification would provide the predictable result of a control device for a locking mechanism usable in a discharging operation.
Regarding claim 2, Ando ‘900 modified by Ando ‘610 teaches [t]he control device… wherein the control device performs control so as to switch the locking device to the unlocked state (para. [0043], “unlocks a connector”) when a second operation (para. [0043], “unlocking of a door”) different from the first operation (calculating and displaying estimated time) is performed while power is supplied in the locked state (para. [0043], “[t]here is also provided a charging system that unlocks a connector in cooperation with the unlocking of a door and stops charging.” Examiner notes unlocking the door causes the charging connector to unlock and reduces the charging current to zero where it was previously charging.).
Regarding claim 3, Ando ‘900 modified by Ando ‘610 teaches [t]he control device… wherein the control device performs control (see the transition between Section 1 and Section 2 as provided in FIG. 3 above) so as to switch the locking device to the unlocked state (the charging connector transitions from the locked ins Section 1 to unlocked state in Section 2) when the first operation is performed a plurality of times (calculating the remaining charge is continuously being performed in Section 1 and is therefore performed a plurality of times) while power is supplied in the locked state (See Section 1 where charging current is greater than zero and the charging connector is locked.).
Regarding claim 4, Ando ‘900 modified by Ando ‘610 teaches [t]he control device… wherein the control device executes a process of indicating an operation (Ando ‘900, blinking; para. [0055], “when ECU 170 determines that the charging current is limited (YES in step S132), ECU 170 reads the remaining charging time stored in step S115 from the memory (step S135), controls DCM 160 to transmit information for displaying the read remaining charging time in a blinking manner.”) necessary to switch the locking device to the unlocked state (as discussed in para. [0051] of Ando ‘900, the charging connector is unlocked in the event that the charging current is limited) when the first operation is performed while power is supplied in the locked state (Ando ‘900, Section 1 shows power supplied in the locked state while the remaining charge time is being calculated. Control is performed at t1 which executes the blinking screen which occurs when the system transitions to the unlocked state.).
Regarding claim 5, Ando ‘900 modified by Ando ‘610 teaches wherein the control device (Ando ‘900, ECU 170) performs control so as to switch the locking device to the unlocked state (Ando ‘900, para. [0051], “ECU 170… controls connector lock device 111 to set charging connector 210 to the unlocked state (step S117).”) when the second operation is performed (Ando ‘900, para. [0049]—[0051], “ECU 170 determines whether or not an operation for unlocking door lock device 180 is performed by the user (step S111). When ECU 170 determines that the operation for unlocking the door is performed (YES in step S111), ECU 170 controls door lock device 180 to switch to the unlocking state (step S112)… Subsequently, 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).”) while no power is supplied in the locked state (Ando ‘900, para. [0051], “ECU 170 controls charging device 130 to limit the charging current (step S116). The charging may be limited to zero).
Conclusion
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