CTNF 19/199,951 CTNF 88617 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. 12-151 AIA 26-51 12-51 Status of Claims Claims 1-8 of US Application No. 19/199,951, filed on 05 May 2025, are currently pending and have been examined. Information Disclosure Statement The Information Disclosure Statement filed on 05 May 2025 has been considered. An initialed copy of form 1449 is enclosed herewith. Specification 06-16 The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words. It is important that the abstract not exceed 150 words in length since the space provided for the abstract on the computer tape used by the printer is limited. The form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as "means" and "said," should be avoided. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details. The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, "The disclosure concerns," "The disclosure defined by this invention," "The disclosure describes," etc. See MPEP § 608.01(b). The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it is not written in narrative form. Instead, the abstract has been written as a run-on sentence that generally mimics the claim. The abstract should be in narrative form, which should include a series of complete sentences. Correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA 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. 07-34-01 Claims 1-8 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 “ notify notification information ”. It is not clear how notification information can be notified. In light of claim 2, the Examiner interprets this limitation as output notification information. The Examiner’s interpretation is supported in the specification at ¶ [0033]. Claims 7 and 8 also recite “ notify notification information ” and are rejected for the same reasons as claim 1. Claims 2-6 are rejected because they depend from claim 1. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (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. 07-15 AIA Claim s 1, 2, 7, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1 ) as being anticipated by DeLuca et al. (US 2020/0217679 A1, “DeLuca”) . Regarding claims 1, 7, and 8, DeLuca discloses determining directional guidance for vehicles and teaches: a controller, the controller is configured to: generate a travel plan in which a vehicle passes through a first supply facility for supplying energy of the vehicle (at 318, route options are recommended to a user – see at least Fig. 3 and ¶ [0054]; routes include charging stations – see at least ¶ [0050]) ; acquire first supply availability information indicating a vacancy state of a first supply facility after the vehicle starts traveling based on the generated travel plan (at 413, availability of charging stations is tracked – see at least Fig. 4 and ¶ [0057]; charging station at the recommended charging locations predicted to be unavailable – see at least ¶ [0058]; sensors at charging locations indicating current and future use and historical trends at charging stations – see at least ¶ [0052]) ; notify notification information indicating that there is no available charging station (at 414, a determination is made as to whether the selected route is still desirable – see at least Fig. 4 and ¶ [0058]; undesirable may include the charging station at the recommended charging locations predicted to be unavailable – see at least ¶ [0058]; at 415, the user is alerted that the route is no longer desirable – see at least ¶ [0059]) ; determine whether or not supply of the energy is available at the first supply facility based on the first supply availability information of the first supply facility (predicting availability of charging stations at charging locations based on sensors and historical trends – see at least ¶ [0052]) ; and when determining that the supply of the energy is not available at the first supply facility, identify a second supply facility different from the first supply facility and generate the travel plan in which the vehicle passes through the second supply facility instead of the first supply facility (if the route is not still desirable as determined at 414, route options may be modified at 416 – see at least Fig. 4 and ¶ [0059]; route option determined at 316 based on tracked information, e.g., predicted availability of charging stations – see at Fig. 3 and ¶ [0053]) . Regarding claim 2, DeLuca further teaches: wherein the controller is further configured to notify that the supply of the energy is not available at the first supply facility when determining that the supply of the energy is not available at the first supply facility (at 415, the user is alerted that the route is no longer desirable – see at least ¶ [0059]) . Double Patenting 08-33 AIA 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. 08-36 AIA Claim s 1-8 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim s 1 and 4-6 of U.S. Patent No. 12,320,658 in view of DeLuca . Regarding claims 1, 7, and 8, U.S. Patent No. 12,320,658 teaches: a controller, the controller is configured to (a controller, the controller is configured to – claim 1) : generate a travel plan in which a vehicle passes through a first supply facility for supplying energy of the vehicle (generate a travel plan in which a vehicle passes through a first supply facility for supplying energy of the vehicle – claim 1) ; acquire first supply availability information indicating a vacancy state of a first supply facility after the vehicle starts traveling based on the generated travel plan (acquire first supply availability information indicating a vacancy state of a first supply facility when the vehicle arrives at a position within a predetermined range from the first supply facility at a predetermined timing after the vehicle starts traveling based on the generated travel plan – claim 1) ; [ ]; determine whether or not supply of the energy is available at the first supply facility based on the first supply availability information of the first supply facility (determine whether or not supply of the energy is available at the first supply facility based on the first supply availability information of the first supply facility – claim 1) ; and when determining that the supply of the energy is not available at the first supply facility, identify a second supply facility different from the first supply facility and generate the travel plan in which the vehicle passes through the second supply facility instead of the first supply facility (when determining that the supply of the energy is not available at the first supply facility, identify a second supply facility different from the first supply facility and generate the travel plan in which the vehicle passes through the second supply facility instead of the first supply facility – claim 1) . U.S. Patent No. 12,320,658 fails to teach notify notification information indicating that there is no available charging station. However, DeLuca discloses determining directional guidance for vehicles and teaches: notify notification information indicating that there is no available charging station (at 414, a determination is made as to whether the selected route is still desirable – see at least Fig. 4 and ¶ [0058]; undesirable may include the charging station at the recommended charging locations predicted to be unavailable – see at least ¶ [0058]; at 415, the user is alerted that the route is no longer desirable – see at least ¶ [0059]). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the controller of U.S. Patent No. 12,320,658 to notify notification information, as taught by DeLuca, with a reasonable expectation of success, because it would alert the user that the selected route is no longer desirable, e.g., the charging stations at the charging locations are unavailable, and allow the user to select another route (DeLuca at ¶ [0059]). Regarding claim 2, DeLuca further teaches: wherein the controller is further configured to notify that the supply of the energy is not available at the first supply facility when determining that the supply of the energy is not available at the first supply facility (at 415, the user is alerted that the route is no longer desirable – see at least ¶ [0059]) . It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the controller of U.S. Patent No. 12,320,658 to notify that the supply of energy is not available, as taught by DeLuca, with a reasonable expectation of success, because it would alert the user that the selected route is no longer desirable, e.g., the charging stations at the charging locations are unavailable, and allow the user to select another route (DeLuca at ¶ [0059]). Regarding claim 3, U.S. Patent No. 12,320,658 further teaches: wherein the controller is further configured to acquire the first supply availability information when the vehicle arrives at a position within a predetermined range from the first supply facility at a predetermined timing after the vehicle starts traveling based on the generated travel plan (acquire first supply availability information indicating a vacancy state of a first supply facility when the vehicle arrives at a position within a predetermined range from the first supply facility at a predetermined timing after the vehicle starts traveling based on the generated travel plan – claim 1) . Regarding claim 4, U.S. Patent No. 12,320,658 further teaches: wherein the controller is further configured to: acquire second supply availability information of the second supply facility after an estimated arrival time at which the vehicle arrives at the second supply facility; determine whether or not the supply of the energy is available at the second supply facility based on the second supply availability information; and when determining that the supply of the energy is available at the second supply facility, generate the travel plan in which the vehicle arrives at the second supply facility after a lapse of time from the estimated arrival time until the supply of the energy becomes available (claim 4) . Regarding claim 5, U.S. Patent No. 12,320,658 further teaches: wherein the controller is further configured to: acquire the first supply availability information of the first supply facility after an estimated arrival time at which the vehicle arrives at the first supply facility; determine whether or not the supply of the energy is available at the first supply facility based on the first supply availability information; and when determining that the supply of the energy is available at the first supply facility, generate the travel plan in which the vehicle arrives at the first supply facility after a lapse of time from the estimated arrival time until the supply of the energy becomes available (claim 6) . Regarding claim 6, U.S. Patent No. 12,320,658 further teaches: wherein the controller is further configured to select a standby place for the vehicle to standby from a standby available place registered in advance in map information and generates the travel plan in which the vehicle stops at the standby place for a time period until the supply of the energy becomes available (claim 5) . Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AARON L TROOST whose telephone number is (571)270-5779. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30am-4pm. 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, Anne Antonucci can be reached at 313-446-6519. 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. /AARON L TROOST/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3666 Application/Control Number: 19/199,951 Page 2 Art Unit: 3666 Application/Control Number: 19/199,951 Page 4 Art Unit: 3666 Application/Control Number: 19/199,951 Page 5 Art Unit: 3666 Application/Control Number: 19/199,951 Page 6 Art Unit: 3666 Application/Control Number: 19/199,951 Page 7 Art Unit: 3666 Application/Control Number: 19/199,951 Page 8 Art Unit: 3666
Prosecution Insights