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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to application filed on November 22, 2024. Claims 1-20 are currently pending in the application.
Continuity Information
This application claims the benefit of priority as a continuation of U.S Application No. 17/821,307, filed on August 22, 2022 (now U.S. Patent No. 12,187,154).
Drawings
The drawings filed on 11/22/2024 are acknowledged and are acceptable.
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 obviousness-type 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); and 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 a nonstatutory double patenting ground 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 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent Number 12,187,154. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they recite the same invention using the same means with little additional change to the claim language.
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 of this title, 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 1-2, 8-9, and 15-16 are rejected 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kashiba (Japanese Publication No. JP2013135549A; machine translation obtained from Espacenet) in view of Matsumoto (U.S. Publication No. 2009/0085522).
As per claim 1, Kashiba discloses an electric vehicle (Fig. 1: electric vehicle V), comprising:
a memory that stores computer executable components (e.g. para. [0047]: a cable lock ECU 50 includes a memory); and
a processor that executes at least one of the computer executable components (e.g. para. [0047]: the cable lock ECU 50 includes a microcomputer) that:
detects, using a transceiver of the electric vehicle, presence of a portable device (a portable device/smart key 100 carried by the user of the vehicle EV) based on signals received from the portable device (see, e.g., Fig. 3; para. [0043], [0046] & [0065]: transmitter 60 sends LF request signals; smart key 100 responds via UHF; vehicle V detects presence of an authorized portable device within vehicle-side detection area A or power supplying-side detection area B);
determines position information of the portable device (Fig. 3; para. [0043], [0046] & [0065]),
controls charging of the electric vehicle in response to a determination that the position information meets a defined criterion (see, e.g. abstract, para. [0059]-[0060] & [0065]: the lock of the charging cable 2 is released when an authorized user carrying the authorized smart key 100 is present in a vehicle-side detection area A).
Kashiba does not explicitly disclose wherein the position information comprises location data and motion data.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Matsumoto teaches: an electric vehicle (Fig. 1: electric vehicle including vehicle unit 10, collation ECU 4, charging ECU 13, and battery charger 20) determines position information of the portable device, wherein the position information comprises location data (see e.g., para. [0036]-[0037]: exterior transmitters 2a, 2b form a communication area around vehicle doors; interior transmitter 8 forms a communication area inside the vehicle compartment; vehicle determines whether the portable device is inside the cabin, near the vehicle, or outside the transmission range) and motion data (see e.g., para. [0037]: vehicle unit 10 detects whether the driver carrying the portable device 1 moves away from or close to the vehicle, indicating directional movement over time); and
controls charging of the electric vehicle in response to a determination that the position information meets a defined criterion (see e.g., para. [0041] & [0056]-[0057]: collation ECU 4 determines whether a charging permitted condition exists (S120); based on communication status and portable device position/motion (S130), the collation ECU requests the charging ECU 13 to prepare for charging; a charging instruction is issued to the battery charger 20, initiating charging of the battery).
Therefore, 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 Kashiba to incorporate the teachings of Matsumoto to provide position and motion based charging control. Doing so would facilitate initiating or permitting charging when the authorized user has moved away from the vehicle, while preventing charging when the user is nearby.
As per claim 2, claim 1 is incorporated and Kashiba in view of Matsumoto discloses: wherein the defined criterion is associated with a defined zone around a charging port of the electric vehicle (see Kashiba, e.g., para. [0043], [0046] & [0065]: vehicle-side detection area A or power supplying-side detection area B; and Matsumoto, e.g., para. [0036]-[0037]).
Method claims 8-9 are drawn to the method of using the corresponding apparatus claimed in claims 1-2. Therefore, method claims 8-9 correspond to apparatus claims 1-2 and are rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as used above.
Computer program product comprising computer readable storage medium claims 15-16 are drawn to program instructions executed by a processor using the corresponding apparatus claimed in claims 1-2. Therefore, computer program product claims 15-16 correspond to apparatus claims 1-2 and are rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as used above.
Note: the computer readable storage medium (CRM) is defined in the specification (para. [00128]) as non-transitory (i.e. excluding propagating signals/carrier waves), thus non CRM 101 issues.
Claims 5-7, 12-14, and 19-20 are rejected 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kashiba in view of Matsumoto, and further in view of Bhade et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2010/0301809; hereinafter “Bhade”).
As per claim 5, claim 2 is incorporated and Kashiba in view of Matsumoto does not explicitly disclose: wherein: the defined criterion comprises:
the electric vehicle currently being charged, and
detecting the portable device being moved in a defined waving motion; and
the controlling comprises ceasing charging of the electric vehicle.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Bhade teaches: detecting the portable device being moved in a defined waving motion; and the controlling comprises ceasing charging of the electric vehicle (see e.g., para. [0038] & [0078]: “For example, the operator 145 may wave/swipe the mobile communication device 150 (if an RFID enabled device) near the RFID reader 330 to request a charging session from the charging station 120”; “For example, the vehicle operator 110 can clear the condition by waving/swiping the mobile communication device 150 near the charging station 120 and can determine to end the session rather than continue charging the vehicle 110 (e.g., in order to remove the cord from the charging station 120)”).
Therefore, 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 Kashiba in view of Matsumoto to incorporate the teachings of Bhade to provide ceasing charging in response to detecting a defined waving motion of the portable device. Doing so enables gesture-based charging control.
As per claim 6, claim 2 is incorporated and Kashiba in view of Matsumoto does not explicitly disclose: wherein: the defined criterion comprises:
the electric vehicle not currently being charged, and
detecting the portable device being moved in a defined waving motion; and
the controlling comprises initiating charging of the electric vehicle.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Bhade teaches: detecting the portable device being moved in a defined waving motion; and the controlling comprises initiating charging of the electric vehicle (see e.g., para. [0038] & [0078]: “For example, the operator 145 may wave/swipe the mobile communication device 150 (if an RFID enabled device) near the RFID reader 330 to request a charging session from the charging station 120”; “For example, the vehicle operator 110 can clear the condition by waving/swiping the mobile communication device 150 near the charging station 120 and can determine to end the session rather than continue charging the vehicle 110 (e.g., in order to remove the cord from the charging station 120)”).
Therefore, 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 Kashiba in view of Matsumoto to incorporate the teachings of Bhade to provide initiating charging in response to detecting a defined waving motion of the portable device. Doing so enables gesture-based charging control.
As per claim 7, claim 2 is incorporated and Kashiba in view of Matsumoto does not explicitly disclose: wherein: the defined criterion comprises:
the electric vehicle currently being charged, and
detecting the portable device being moved in a defined waving motion; and
the controlling comprises maintaining charging of the electric vehicle.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Bhade teaches: detecting the portable device being moved in a defined waving motion; and the controlling comprises maintaining charging of the electric vehicle (see e.g., para. [0038] & [0078]: “For example, the operator 145 may wave/swipe the mobile communication device 150 (if an RFID enabled device) near the RFID reader 330 to request a charging session from the charging station 120”; “For example, the vehicle operator 110 can clear the condition by waving/swiping the mobile communication device 150 near the charging station 120 and can determine to end the session rather than continue charging the vehicle 110 (e.g., in order to remove the cord from the charging station 120)”).
Therefore, 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 Kashiba in view of Matsumoto to incorporate the teachings of Bhade to provide maintaining charging in response to detecting a defined waving motion of the portable device. Doing so enables to use gestures to override or maintain charging state.
Method claims 12-14 are drawn to the method of using the corresponding apparatus claimed in claims 5-7. Therefore, method claims 12-14 correspond to apparatus claims 5-7 and are rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as used above.
Computer program product comprising computer readable storage medium claims 19-20 are drawn to program instructions executed by a processor using the corresponding apparatus claimed in claims 5-6. Therefore, computer program product claims 19-20 correspond to apparatus claims 5-6 and are rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as used above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-4, 10-11, and 17-18 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.
Regarding claims 3, 10, and 17, the following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior arts of record do not expressly teach or render obvious, in the context of the claim taken as a whole, detecting driver intent relative to charging control, and dynamically resizing the detection/charging zone.
Regarding claims 4, 11, and 18, the following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior arts of record do not expressly teach or render obvious, in the context of the claim taken as a whole, stopping charging due to the detection of the portable device in the detection/charging zone, time-based dwell condition, and automatic resumption of charging after a delay.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Refer to PTO-892, Notice of References Cited for a listing of analogous art.
Lan et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2025/0230698A1) teaches a vehicle control method and apparatus, and a vehicle, to improve charging experience
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADNAN AZIZ whose telephone number is (571) 270-7536, (Fax: 571-270-8536). The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday (9am - 6pm Eastern Time).
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, QUAN-ZHEN WANG can be reached on 571-272-3114. 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.
/ADNAN AZIZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2685 adnan.aziz@uspto.gov