`“x
`‘\\f
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`Address: COMIVHSSIONER FOR PATENTS
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria1 Virginia 22313-1450
`www.uspto.gov
`
`
`
`
`
`14/008,225
`
`09/27/2013
`
`Tsuyoshi Nishio
`
`WASHB—51594
`
`4152
`
`04’20’2016 —PEARNE&GORDON LLP m
`
`7590
`52054
`
`
`O'NE L'BECERRIL’ HARRY
`1801 EAST 9TH STREET
`SUITE 1200
`CLEVELAND, OH 441 14-3108
`
`PAPER NUMBER
`
`ART UNIT
`2859
`
`NOTIFICATION DATE
`
`DELIVERY MODE
`
`04/20/2016
`
`ELECTRONIC
`
`Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
`
`The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
`
`Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above—indicated "Notification Date" to the
`following e—mail address(es):
`
`patdocket @ pearne.c0m
`jcholley @pearne.c0m
`
`PTOL—90A (Rev. 04/07)
`
`

`

`
`
`Applicant(s)
`Application No.
` 14/008,225 NISHIO, TSUYOSHI
`
`Examiner
`Art Unit
`AIA (First Inventor to File)
`Office Action Summary
`
`2859HARRY O'NEILL-BECERRIL [SENS
`
`-- The MAILING DA TE of this communication appears on the cover sheet with the correspondence address --
`Period for Reply
`
`A SHORTENED STATUTORY PERIOD FOR REPLY IS SET TO EXPIRE g MONTHS FROM THE MAILING DATE OF
`THIS COMMUNICATION.
`Extensions of time may be available under the provisions of 37 CFR1. 136( a).
`after SIX () MONTHS from the mailing date of this communication.
`If NO period for reply is specified above, the maximum statutory period will apply and will expire SIX (6) MONTHS from the mailing date of this communication.
`-
`- Failure to reply within the set or extended period for reply will, by statute, cause the application to become ABANDONED (35 U.S.C. § 133).
`Any reply received by the Office later than three months after the mailing date of this communication, even if timely filed, may reduce any
`earned patent term adjustment. See 37 CFR 1 .704(b).
`
`In no event, however, may a reply be timely filed
`
`Status
`
`1)IZI Responsive to communication(s) filed on 01/07/2016.
`El A declaration(s)/affidavit(s) under 37 CFR 1.130(b) was/were filed on
`
`2b)|:l This action is non-final.
`2a)|Z| This action is FINAL.
`3)I:I An election was made by the applicant in response to a restriction requirement set forth during the interview on
`
`; the restriction requirement and election have been incorporated into this action.
`
`4)|:| Since this application is in condition for allowance except for formal matters, prosecution as to the merits is
`
`closed in accordance with the practice under Exparte Quay/e, 1935 CD. 11, 453 O.G. 213.
`
`Disposition of Claims*
`
`5)IZI Claim(s) L22is/are pending in the application.
`5a) Of the above claim(s)
`is/are withdrawn from consideration.
`
`is/are allowed.
`6)I:I Claim(s)
`7)|Z| Claim(s) 12-15 and 20-22 is/are rejected.
`8)IZI Claim(s)_61-19 is/are objected to.
`
`
`are subject to restriction and/or election requirement.
`9)I:I Claim((s)
`* If any claims have been determined allowable, you may be eligible to benefit from the Patent Prosecution Highway program at a
`
`participating intellectual property office for the corresponding application. For more information, please see
`
`
`
`:/'I’\WIIW.usnto. ovI’ atentS/init events/
`h/index.‘s orsend an inquiryto PPI-iieedback{®usgtc.00v.
`
`hit
`
`Application Papers
`
`10)I:l The specification is objected to by the Examiner.
`11)|Xl The drawing(s) filed on 09/27/2013 is/are: a)IXI accepted or b)|:l objected to by the Examiner.
`Applicant may not request that any objection to the drawing(s) be held in abeyance. See 37 CFR 1.85(a).
`
`Replacement drawing sheet(s) including the correction is required if the drawing(s) is objected to. See 37 CFR 1.121 (d).
`
`Priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119
`
`12)IXI Acknowledgment is made of a claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119(a)-(d) or (f).
`Certified copies:
`
`a)IZl All
`
`b)|:l Some” c)I:l None of the:
`
`1.IXI Certified copies of the priority documents have been received.
`2.|:l Certified copies of the priority documents have been received in Application No.
`3.|:| Copies of the certified copies of the priority documents have been received in this National Stage
`
`application from the International Bureau (PCT Rule 17.2(a)).
`** See the attached detailed Office action for a list of the certified copies not received.
`
`Attachment(s)
`
`
`
`3) D Interview Summary (PTO-413)
`1) E Notice of References Cited (PTO-892)
`Paper No(s)/Mai| Date.
`.
`.
`4) I:I Other'
`2) I] InformatIon DIsclosure Statement(s) (PTO/SB/08a and/or PTO/SB/08b)
`Paper No(s)/Mai| Date
`US. Patent and Trademark Office
`PTOL—326 (Rev. 11-13)
`
`Office Action Summary
`
`Part of Paper No./Mai| Date 20160411
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 14/008,225
`
`Page 2
`
`Art Unit: 2859
`
`DETAILED ACTION
`
`Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
`
`1.
`
`The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent
`
`provisions.
`
`Amendment
`
`2.
`
`The amendment filed on 12/28/2015 has been entered and fully considered.
`
`Claim(s) 12 — 22 remain pending in the application. Claim(s) 12 — 19 and 21 — 22 have
`
`been amended.
`
`Response to Arguments
`
`3.
`
`Examiner’s response to Applicant’s arguments filed on 12/28/2015 addressing
`
`the Non-final office action mailed on 08/28/2015.
`
`4.
`
`Examiner has considered applicants' proposed amendment(s) to the claim(s) and
`
`submits:
`
`o The terminal disclaimer has been approved by the Patent Legal Research
`
`Center. The Double patenting rejections of claims 12 — 22 are withdrawn.
`
`. The amendment(s) to the title and abstract have overcome the objection(s) set
`
`forth in the Non-final office action.
`
`0 The amendment(s) to Claim 12 have overcome the objection(s) to the drawings
`
`and specification set forth in the Non-final office action.
`
`0 The amendment(s) to Claim 12 have overcome the claim objection(s) set forth in
`
`the Non-final office action.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 14/008,225
`
`Page 3
`
`Art Unit: 2859
`
`The amendment(s) to Claim 12 have overcome the 35 USC § (112) rejection(s)
`
`of claim(s) 12 — 22 set forth in the Non-final office action. The 35 USC § (112)
`
`rejection(s) of claim(s) 12 — 22 are withdrawn.
`
`Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 12 — 22 under
`
`35 USC §103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The
`
`Applicants' amendments to claims 12 — 19 and 21 — 22 have changed the scope
`
`of the invention; this necessitated, upon further consideration, new grounds of
`
`rejection in view of new references used in conjunction with some of the previous
`
`art used in the non-final office action. Therefore, the arguments are found moot in
`
`view of new grounds of rejection. Applicant's arguments do not apply to the new
`
`references being used in the current rejection.
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
`
`5.
`
`The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis
`
`for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
`
`(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described
`as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to
`be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been
`obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which
`said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the
`invention was made.
`
`The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148
`
`USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining
`
`obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 14/008,225
`
`Page 4
`
`Art Unit: 2859
`
`3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
`
`4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating
`
`obviousness or nonobviousness.
`
`6.
`
`Claims 12 and 20 — 22 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being
`
`unpatentable over US 20120133326 A1 (“Ichikawa”) and further in view of US
`
`20080218121 A1 (“Gale”) and further in view of US 20120153895 A1 ("Gale2") and
`
`further in view of US 20080111526 A1 ("Shuey").
`
`Regarding claim 12, Ichikawa teaches an in-vehicle charging apparatus (FIG.
`
`3 discloses the charging apparatus inside the vehicle) that charges a storage battery
`
`installed in a vehicle (FIG. 1 discloses the POWER STORAGE DEVICE, 150) from a
`
`power source provided outside the vehicle (FIG. 3 discloses the EXTERNAL POWER
`
`SUPPLY), the apparatus comprising:
`
`A charger that is connected to the power source provided outside the vehicle and
`
`that receives a current for charging the storage battery (Disclosed by FIG. 3).
`
`A measurement section that measures the input voltage corresponding to the
`
`input current (FIG. 3 discloses the voltage sensor, 188).
`
`Ichikawa does not teach a charger that receives a variable input current; a
`
`measurement section that measures the input current of the charger; and a control
`
`section that varies the input current of the charger into a plurality of values, determines
`
`a lower voltage limit threshold for the input voltage according to a correspondence
`
`between the input currents during the varying and the input voltages measured by the
`
`measurement section, and controls the input current according to the correspondence
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 14/008,225
`
`Page 5
`
`Art Unit: 2859
`
`and the lower voltage limit threshold so as to decrease the input current, and decrease
`
`electrical load on the power source, when the input voltage is less than the lower
`
`voltage limit threshold.
`
`Gale teaches a charger that receives a variable input current (Disclosed in FIG.
`
`A measurement section that measures the input current of the charger
`
`(Disclosed in FIG. 4 element 76).
`
`A control section that varies the input current of the charger into a plurality of
`
`values (Disclosed in FIG. 4).
`
`The advantage of doing such is to be able to charge an electric vehicle without a
`
`dedicated charging station without affecting the equipment in the house. Therefore, it
`
`would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention
`
`was made to have incorporated the feature of a charger that measures voltages and
`
`currents to determine appropriate charging levels as taught in Gale into Ichikawa in
`
`order to gain the advantage of being able to charge an electric vehicle without a
`
`dedicated charging station without affecting the equipment in the house.
`
`Gale2 teaches a device that determines a lower voltage limit threshold for the
`
`input voltage according to a correspondence between the input currents during the
`
`varying and the input voltages measured by the measurement section (10009, 110010,
`
`110016 and 110017 discloses the measurement of the currents and voltages and the
`
`determination of the setpoints for the voltage and current).
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 14/008,225
`
`Page 6
`
`Art Unit: 2859
`
`Controls the input current according to the correspondence and the lower limit
`
`threshold (Disclosed by 110009, 110010, 110016 and 110017).
`
`The advantage of doing such is to comply with NEC regulations. Therefore, it
`
`would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention
`
`was made to have incorporated the feature of a charger that determines the voltage
`
`threshold as taught in Gale2 into lchikawa in order to gain the advantage of complying
`
`with NEC regulations.
`
`Shuey teaches a device that controls the input current according to the
`
`correspondence and the lower voltage limit threshold so as to decrease the input
`
`current, and decrease electrical load on the power source, when the input voltage is
`
`less than the lower voltage limit threshold (110020 discloses that the current is reduced
`
`when the voltage falls below a minimum).
`
`The advantage of doing such is to have a power supply that can provide for
`
`battery charging while providing power for other devices. Therefore, it would have been
`
`obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to
`
`have incorporated the feature of a charger that decreases the current draw during
`
`battery charging as taught in Shuey into lchikawa in order to gain the advantage of
`
`having a power supply that can provide for battery charging while providing power for
`
`other devices.
`
`Regarding claim 20: lchikawa does not explicitly teach the limitation(s) of the
`
`claim but Gale2 teaches the claim limitation(s).
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 14/008,225
`
`Page 7
`
`Art Unit: 2859
`
`Gale2 teaches a charging apparatus wherein the control section finds, when the
`
`supply of the power source to the storage battery from the power source provided
`
`outside the vehicle is shut off in a process of finding the correspondence (110009, 110010,
`
`110016 and 110017 disclose the measurement of the currents and voltages and the
`
`determination of the setpoints for the voltage and current).
`
`The correspondence based on an input current equal to or less than a largest
`
`value among input currents set before the shutoff when the correspondence is found
`
`next time (110009, 110010, 110016 and 110017 disclose the measurement of the currents
`
`and voltages and the determination of the setpoints for the voltage and current).
`
`The advantage of doing such is to comply with NEC regulations. Therefore, it
`
`would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention
`
`was made to have incorporated the feature of a charger that determines the voltage
`
`threshold as taught in Gale2 into lchikawa in order to gain the advantage of complying
`
`with NEC regulations.
`
`Regarding claim 21: lchikawa does not explicitly teach the limitation(s) of the
`
`claim but Gale2 teaches the claim limitation(s).
`
`Gale2 teaches a charging apparatus wherein the control section determines the
`
`lower voltage limit threshold according to the correspondence at least before or after
`
`start of charge (110009, 110010, 110016 and 110017 disclose the measurement of the
`
`currents and voltages and the determination of the setpoints for the voltage and
`
`current).
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 14/008,225
`
`Page 8
`
`Art Unit: 2859
`
`The advantage of doing such is to comply with NEC regulations. Therefore, it
`
`would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention
`
`was made to have incorporated the feature of a charger that determines the voltage
`
`threshold as taught in Gale2 into lchikawa in order to gain the advantage of complying
`
`with NEC regulations.
`
`Regarding claim 22: lchikawa does not explicitly teach the limitation(s) of the
`
`claim but Gale2 teaches the claim limitation(s).
`
`Gale2 a charging apparatus wherein the control section controls the input current
`
`according to the correspondence and the lower limit threshold when the input voltage
`
`varies after start of charge (110009, 110010, 110016 and 110017 disclose the measurement
`
`of the currents and voltages and the determination of the setpoints for the voltage and
`
`current).
`
`The advantage of doing such is to comply with NEC regulations. Therefore, it
`
`would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention
`
`was made to have incorporated the feature of a charger that determines the voltage
`
`threshold as taught in Gale2 into lchikawa in order to gain the advantage of complying
`
`with NEC regulations.
`
`7.
`
`Claims 13 — 15 are rejected under pre-AlA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being
`
`unpatentable over US 20120133326 A1 (“lchikawa”) and further in view of US
`
`20080218121 A1 (“Gale”) and further in view of US 20120153895 A1 ("Gale2") and
`
`further in view of US 20080111526 A1 ("Shuey") and further in view of US
`
`20130320989 A1 (“Inoue”).
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 14/008,225
`
`Page 9
`
`Art Unit: 2859
`
`Regarding claim 13: Ichikawa does not explicitly teach the |imitation(s) of the
`
`claim but Inoue and Gale2 teach the claim |imitation(s).
`
`Inoue teaches a device wherein the control section finds the correspondence as
`
`a first-order approximation straight line (110048 discloses the measurements of currents
`
`and voltages. 110085 and FIG. 10 discloses the use of linear interpolation for measured
`
`values).
`
`The advantage of doing such is to prevent an overcharge while charging a
`
`battery. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at
`
`the time the invention was made to have incorporated the feature of using a linear
`
`interpolation method to correlate measured voltages and currents as taught in lnoue
`
`into Ichikawa in order to gain the advantage of preventing overcharge while charging a
`
`battery.
`
`Gale2 teaches a device that determines the lower voltage limit threshold based
`
`on an intercept of the first-order approximation straight line (Inoue teaches the linear
`
`interpolation and 110009, 110010, 110016 and 110017 disclose the measurement of the
`
`currents and voltages and the determination of the setpoints for the voltage and
`
`current).
`
`Controls the input current according to the first-order approximation straight line
`
`and the lower voltage limit threshold (Inoue teaches the linear interpolation and 110009,
`
`110010, 110016 and 110017 disclose the measurement of the currents and voltages and
`
`the determination of the setpoints for the voltage and current).
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 14/008,225
`
`Page 10
`
`Art Unit: 2859
`
`The advantage of doing such is to comply with NEC regulations. Therefore, it
`
`would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention
`
`was made to have incorporated the feature of a charger that determines the voltage
`
`threshold as taught in Gale2 into lchikawa in order to gain the advantage of complying
`
`with NEC regulations.
`
`Regarding claim 14: lchikawa does not explicitly teach the limitation(s) of the
`
`claim but lnoue and Gale2 teach the claim limitation(s).
`
`lnoue teaches a device wherein the control section finds a control straight line
`
`that has the same slope as the first-order approximation straight line and passes
`
`through the lower voltage limit threshold with respect to the input voltage after start of
`
`charge (110048 discloses the measurements of currents and voltages. 110085 and la.
`
`fl discloses the use of linear interpolation for measured values).
`
`The advantage of doing such is to prevent an overcharge while charging a
`
`battery. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at
`
`the time the invention was made to have incorporated the feature of using a linear
`
`interpolation method to correlate measured voltages and currents as taught in lnoue
`
`into lchikawa in order to gain the advantage of preventing overcharge while charging a
`
`battery.
`
`Ga|e2 teaches a device that performs a control that decreases the input current
`
`down to an input current corresponding to an input voltage substantially equal to the
`
`input voltage before a decrease on the control straight line (lnoue teaches the linear
`
`interpolation and 110009, 110010, 110016 and 110017 disclose the measurement of the
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 14/008,225
`
`Page 11
`
`Art Unit: 2859
`
`currents and voltages and the determination of the setpoints for the voltage and
`
`current).
`
`Performs, when the input voltage increases after start of charge, a control that
`
`increases the input current up to an input current corresponding to an input voltage that
`
`corresponds to the same slope as that of the first-order approximation straight line and
`
`that is substantially equal to the input voltage before the increase (lnoue teaches the
`
`linear interpolation and 110009, 110010, 110016 and 110017 disclose the measurement of
`
`the currents and voltages and the determination of the setpoints for the voltage and
`
`current).
`
`The advantage of doing such is to comply with NEC regulations. Therefore, it
`
`would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention
`
`was made to have incorporated the feature of a charger that determines the voltage
`
`threshold as taught in Gale2 into lchikawa in order to gain the advantage of complying
`
`with NEC regulations.
`
`Regarding claim 15: lchikawa does not explicitly teach the limitation(s) of the
`
`claim but lnoue and Gale2 teach the claim limitation(s).
`
`Ga|e2 teaches a device wherein the control section sets a minimum value of
`
`intercepts of the first-order approximation straight line measured a plurality of times as
`
`the lower voltage limit threshold (lnoue teaches the linear interpolation and 110009,
`
`110010, 110016 and 110017 disclose the measurement of the currents and voltages and
`
`the determination of the setpoints for the voltage and current).
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 14/008,225
`
`Page 12
`
`Art Unit: 2859
`
`The advantage of doing such is to comply with NEC regulations. Therefore, it
`
`would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention
`
`was made to have incorporated the feature of a charger that determines the voltage
`
`threshold as taught in Gale2 into lchikawa in order to gain the advantage of complying
`
`with NEC regulations.
`
`Allowable Subject Matter
`
`8.
`
`Claims 16 — 19 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.
`
`9.
`
`The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject
`
`matter:
`
`. Claim 16 as applied to claim 13 recites, inter alia, -- finds an average value of the
`
`found minimum values, and sets a value smaller than the average value by a
`
`predetermined deviation, as the lower voltage limit threshold
`
`The above
`
`limitation is not disclosed, taught, or suggested in the prior art of record to meet
`
`the above limitation.
`
`0 Claim 17 as applied to claim 13 recites, inter alia, -- sets a value smaller than an
`
`average value of intercepts of the first- order approximation straight line
`
`measured a plurality of times, by a predetermined deviation
`
`The above
`
`limitation is not disclosed, taught, or suggested in the prior art of record to meet
`
`the above limitation.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 14/008,225
`
`Page 13
`
`Art Unit: 2859
`
`. Claim 18 as applied to claim 13 recites, inter alia, -- a provisional lower voltage
`
`limit threshold based on the intercepts of the first- order approximation straight
`
`line measured a plurality of times
`
`The above limitation is not disclosed,
`
`taught, or suggested in the prior art of record to meet the above limitation.
`
`. Claim 19 as applied to claim 13 recites, inter alia, -- a value smaller than an
`
`average value by a predetermined deviation, the average value being obtained
`
`by finding a minimum value of intercepts of the first-order approximation straight
`
`line measured a predetermined number of times
`
`The above limitation is not
`
`disclosed, taught, or suggested in the prior art of record to meet the above
`
`limitation.
`
`Conclusion
`
`10.
`
`Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in
`
`this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP
`
`§ 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37
`
`CFR1.136(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
`
`extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 14/008,225
`
`Page 14
`
`Art Unit: 2859
`
`the advisory action.
`
`In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later
`
`than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
`
`Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the
`
`examiner should be directed to HARRY O'NEILL-BECERRIL whose telephone number
`
`is (571 )270-0403. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 7:30am-
`
`5pm EST..
`
`If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s
`
`supervisor, Drew Dunn can be reached on 571-272—2312. The fax phone number for
`
`the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571 -273-8300.
`
`Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the
`
`Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for
`
`published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR.
`
`Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only.
`
`For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should
`
`you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic
`
`Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a
`
`USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information
`
`system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272—1000.
`
`/H. O./
`
`Examiner, Art Unit 2859
`
`/Robert Grant/
`
`Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2859
`
`