DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Claims
In the communication dated November 25, 2025, claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 1, 5-6, 9, 13-14 and 17-18 are amended.
Response to Arguments
The applicant argues that the independent claims, as amended, overcome the reference of Rosene, as Rosene teaches that a vehicle is moved to a new parking location responsive to completion of the scheduled charging.
After fully considering the applicant remarks, the Examiner agrees and the 102 rejection is withdrawn. However, after further search and consideration, the reference of Khoo et al. US20190180336A1 is newly cited in combination with Rosene, as detailed further below, for teaching the termination of charging.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-8 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 1, the extra period “.” should be deleted from the end of the claim.
Claims 2-8 are objected to because of their dependency from an objected claim.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-4, 7-12, 15-17 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rosene et al. US20200262307A1 in view of Khoo et al. US20190180336A1.
Regarding claim 1. Rosene discloses a method for a charging station (FIG. 5B), comprising:
identifying the charging station (176) configured to provide a host vehicle (first vehicle in the queue) connected to the charging station a charge according to a host vehicle charging schedule (¶29 – schedule is based on various factors; ¶39 - priority levels may be assigned; the host vehicle being the vehicle with the highest priority and currently charging);
identifying a proximate vehicle (a vehicle that enters the queue) not being connected to the charging station (having a lower priority than the host vehicle) based on a distance of the proximate vehicle from the charging station (¶33-34 – charging station is within a predefined distance);
transmitting a cooperation request to the proximate vehicle (¶34 – computing platform asks for input from the user to confirm that they want to join the queue);
receiving a proximate vehicle charging schedule from the proximate vehicle (¶35 – computing platform obtains an estimated departure time, desired SOC and current SOC of the battery);
Rosene discloses generating a cooperative charging schedule to determine whether to change an order of charging between the host vehicle connected to the charging station (a vehicle currently being charged by the charging station) and the proximate vehicle not being connected to the charging station (a vehicle newly arriving at the charging station) based on a comparison of the host vehicle charging schedule and the proximate vehicle charging schedule (¶39 – each user assigned with a charging priority level based on the current SOC and/or the price offered to pay. The scheduler 178 reorders the queue as need based on priority; ¶28 – depending on the schedule generated, the battery of the vehicle may not be fully charged when the charging schedule is completed. The vehicle is sent to a new parking location).
Rosene discloses that the cooperative charging schedule is received and determined to be accepted by the host vehicle (¶35 – computing platform 104 verifies if the charging schedule is acceptable for the vehicle).
Rosene discloses transmitting the cooperative charging schedule to the charging station (¶30 – charging schedule is sent to the charging station 176).
updating charging parameters to cooperative charging parameters based on the cooperative charging schedule (¶35 - The verification may be performed automatically by the computing platform 104 or manually through user input.);
transmitting the cooperative charging parameters to the host vehicle (¶41 – the computing platform of the vehicle receives the notification from the charging station scheduler); and
Although Rosene teaches assigning charging according to a priority order and removing users from a queue (¶39), Rosene does not explicitly teach receipt of the cooperative charging parameters by the host vehicle causes the host vehicle to terminate charging and the proximate vehicle to commence charging.
Khoo discloses that receipt of the cooperative charging parameters by the host vehicle causes the host vehicle to terminate charging and the proximate vehicle to commence charging (¶135-136 – first user requests extension of time, second user may deny extension of time, thus ending the charging of the first user and charging of the second user begins; FIG. 19; ¶204 – negotiation algorithm includes factors such as priority lists; ¶207 – first charging station enables or disables a charge transfer for the first electric vehicle based on the charging algorithm).
The references of Rosene are related art as both relate to vehicle charging systems using a charging station. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide the charging of Khoo to the charging system of Rosene in order to provide more efficient charging routines to cut down on the amount of charging time (Khoo; ¶6).
Regarding claim 2 and claim 10. Rosene discloses the host vehicle charging schedule includes a host vehicle departure time (¶39 – each vehicle, provides an estimated departure time; schedules generated using user specific parameters which includes the estimated departure time between vehicles), wherein the comparison includes calculating a departure difference between the host vehicle departure time and a proximate vehicle departure time (although not explicitly taught, one of ordinary skill in the art would know that priority is given to the vehicle with the earliest departure time, thus performing a calculation to determine that there is a difference between the departure of one vehicle to another).
Regarding claim 3 and claim 11. Rosene disclose that the departure difference identifies the host vehicle and the proximate vehicle as a first departing vehicle and a second departing vehicle based on an order of departure, and wherein the first departing vehicle is charged before the second departing vehicle (¶39 – each vehicle, provides an estimated departure time; schedules generated using user specific parameters which includes the estimated departure time between vehicles; although not explicitly taught, one of ordinary skill in the art would know that when charging based on priority, preference is given to the vehicle with the earliest departure time, thus performing a calculation to determine that there is a difference between the departure of one vehicle to another)
Regarding claim 4 and claim 12. Rosene discloses that the proximate vehicle charging schedule includes proximate vehicle historical data (¶35 – historic departure records), the method further comprising: estimating the proximate vehicle departure time based on the proximate vehicle historical data (¶35 – departure time and exit SOC may be obtained from historic departure records).
Regarding claim 7 and claim 15. Rosene teaches that the host vehicle charging schedule is based on a charging reservation (¶30 – if the charging station can accommodate the charging requirement a reservation may be sent).
Regarding claim 8 and claim 16. Rosene discloses identifying the charging station is based on a charging link between the host vehicle and the charging station (¶38 – if the charging requirement for an incoming vehicle cannot be accommodated the vehicle without displacing a vehicle already in the queue (or the host vehicle that is presently charging). The charging station is identified based on the status of the vehicles already in the queue).
Regarding claim 9. Rosene discloses a system for a charging station (FIG. 1), comprising:
a processor (106); and
a memory storing instructions when executed by the processor (¶¶14 – any circuit disclosed herein includes memory devices to execute a process) cause the processor to:
identify the charging station (176) configured to provide a host vehicle (first vehicle in the queue) connected to the charging station a charge according to a host vehicle charging schedule (¶29 – schedule is based on various factors; ¶39 - priority levels may be assigned; the host vehicle being the vehicle with the highest priority and currently charging);
identify a proximate vehicle (a vehicle that enters the queue) not being connected to the charging station (having a lower priority than the host vehicle) based on a distance of the proximate vehicle from the charging station (¶33-34 – charging station is within a predefined distance);
transmit a cooperation request to the proximate vehicle (¶34 – computing platform asks for input from the user to confirm that they want to join the queue);
receive a proximate vehicle charging schedule from the proximate vehicle (¶35 – computing platform obtains an estimated departure time, desired SOC and current SOC of the battery);
Rosene discloses to generate a cooperative charging schedule to determine whether to change an order of charging between the host vehicle connected to the charging station (a vehicle currently being charged by the charging station) and the proximate vehicle not being connected to the charging station (a vehicle newly arriving at the charging station) based on a comparison of the host vehicle charging schedule and the proximate vehicle charging schedule (¶39 – each user assigned with a charging priority level based on the current SOC and/or the price offered to pay. The scheduler 178 reorders the queue as need based on priority; ¶28 – depending on the schedule generated, the battery of the vehicle may not be fully charged when the charging schedule is completed. The vehicle is sent to a new parking location).
Rosene discloses that the cooperative charging schedule is received and determined to be accepted by the host vehicle (¶35 – computing platform 104 verifies if the charging schedule is acceptable for the vehicle).
Rosene discloses transmitting the cooperative charging schedule to the charging station (¶30 – charging schedule is sent to the charging station 176).
update charging parameters to cooperative charging parameters based on the cooperative charging schedule (¶35 - The verification may be performed automatically by the computing platform 104 or manually through user input.);
transmit the cooperative charging parameters to the host vehicle (¶41 – the computing platform of the vehicle receives the notification from the charging station scheduler); and
Although Rosene teaches assigning charging according to a priority order and removing users from a queue (¶39), Rosene does not explicitly teach receipt of the cooperative charging parameters by the host vehicle causes the host vehicle to terminate charging and the proximate vehicle to commence charging.
Khoo discloses that receipt of the cooperative charging parameters by the host vehicle causes the host vehicle to terminate charging and the proximate vehicle to commence charging (¶135-136 – first user requests extension of time, second user may deny extension of time, thus ending the charging of the first user and charging of the second user begins; FIG. 19; ¶204 – negotiation algorithm includes factors such as priority lists; ¶207 – first charging station enables or disables a charge transfer for the first electric vehicle based on the charging algorithm).
The references of Rosene are related art as both relate to vehicle charging systems using a charging station. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide the charging of Khoo to the charging system of Rosene in order to provide more efficient charging routines to cut down on the amount of charging time (Khoo; ¶6).
Regarding claim 17. Rosene discloses a non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing instruction that when executed by a computer (¶14 – electronic devices to execute a computer program embodied in a non-transitory computer readable medium), which includes a processor (106) to perform a method for a charging station, the method comprising:
identifying the charging station (176) configured to provide a host vehicle (first vehicle in the queue) connected to the charging station a charge according to a host vehicle charging schedule (¶29 – schedule is based on various factors; ¶39 - priority levels may be assigned; the host vehicle being the vehicle with the highest priority and currently charging);
identifying a proximate vehicle (a vehicle that enters the queue) not being connected to the charging station (having a lower priority than the host vehicle) based on a distance of the proximate vehicle from the charging station (¶33-34 – charging station is within a predefined distance);
transmitting a cooperation request to the proximate vehicle (¶34 – computing platform asks for input from the user to confirm that they want to join the queue);
wherein the proximate vehicle charging schedule includes a proximate vehicle departure time (¶39 – each vehicle, provides an estimated departure time; schedules generated using user specific parameters which includes the estimated departure time between vehicles) .
Rosene discloses generating a cooperative charging schedule to determine whether to change an order of charging between the host vehicle connected to the charging station (a vehicle currently being charged by the charging station) and the proximate vehicle not being connected to the charging station (a vehicle newly arriving at the charging station) based on a comparison of the host vehicle charging schedule and the proximate vehicle charging schedule (¶39 – each user assigned with a charging priority level based on the current SOC and/or the price offered to pay. The scheduler 178 reorders the queue as need based on priority; ¶28 – depending on the schedule generated, the battery of the vehicle may not be fully charged when the charging schedule is completed. The vehicle is sent to a new parking location).
Rosene discloses that the cooperative charging schedule is received and determined to be accepted by the host vehicle (¶35 – computing platform 104 verifies if the charging schedule is acceptable for the vehicle).
updating charging parameters to cooperative charging parameters based on the cooperative charging schedule (¶35 - The verification may be performed automatically by the computing platform 104 or manually through user input.);
transmitting the cooperative charging parameters to the host vehicle (¶41 – the computing platform of the vehicle receives the notification from the charging station scheduler); and
Although Rosene teaches assigning charging according to a priority order and removing users from a queue (¶39), Rosene does not explicitly teach receipt of the cooperative charging parameters by the host vehicle causes the host vehicle to terminate charging and the proximate vehicle to commence charging.
Khoo discloses that receipt of the cooperative charging parameters by the host vehicle causes the host vehicle to terminate charging and the proximate vehicle to commence charging (¶135-136 – first user requests extension of time, second user may deny extension of time, thus ending the charging of the first user and charging of the second user begins; FIG. 19; ¶204 – negotiation algorithm includes factors such as priority lists; ¶207 – first charging station enables or disables a charge transfer for the first electric vehicle based on the charging algorithm).
The references of Rosene are related art as both relate to vehicle charging systems using a charging station. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide the charging of Khoo to the charging system of Rosene in order to provide more efficient charging routines to cut down on the amount of charging time (Khoo; ¶6).
Although Rosene does not explicitly teach that the communication includes a departure difference between the host vehicle departure time and the proximate vehicle departure time one of ordinary skill in the art would know that priority is given to the vehicle with the earliest departure time, thus performing a calculation to determine that there is a difference between the departure of one vehicle to another.
Regarding claim 19. Rosene teaches that the host vehicle charging schedule is based on a charging reservation (¶30 – if the charging station can accommodate the charging requirement a reservation may be sent).
Regarding claim 20. Rosene discloses identifying the charging station is based on a charging link between the host vehicle and the charging station (¶38 – if the charging requirement for an incoming vehicle cannot be accommodated the vehicle without displacing a vehicle already in the queue (or the host vehicle that is presently charging). The charging station is identified based on the status of the vehicles already in the queue).
Claims 5-6, 13-14 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rosene et al. US20200262307A1 in view of Khoo et al. US20190180336A1 and further in view of Books US20220024330A1.
Regarding claim 5 and claim 13 and claim 18. Rosene discloses that the host vehicle charging schedule includes a host vehicle desired state of charge (SOC) to be increased as set by the host vehicle (¶39 – desired exit SOC), wherein the proximate vehicle charging schedule includes a proximate vehicle desired SOC to be increased as set by the proximate vehicle (¶39 – desired exit SOC), and wherein the comparison includes calculating a host vehicle charge period based on the host vehicle desired SOC to be increased and a proximate vehicle charge period based on the proximate vehicle desired SOC to be increased (¶39 – each user assigned with a charging priority level based on the amount of charging necessary),
Although Rosene discloses assigning priority according to the SOC (¶29), and Khoo teaches determining a priority order according to the expected time a vehicle will occupy an available charging space (Khoo; ¶126), Rosene and Khoo do not explicitly teach that the cooperative charging schedule puts a higher priority on a vehicle with a shorter charge period among the host vehicle and proximate vehicle.
Books discloses putting a higher priority on a vehicle with a shorter charge period among the host vehicle and proximate vehicle (¶51 – priority is given to battery systems that require the shortest charge time, thus being charged first).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a higher priority the vehicle having the shortest charging duration in order to meet the needs of a greater number of vehicles (Books; ¶3).
Regarding claim 6 and claim 14. Rosene discloses that determining whether the host vehicle is able to reach the host vehicle desired SOC or the proximate vehicle is able to reach the proximate vehicle desired SOC, and selecting a first vehicle to charge first based on determination (¶39 – the charging schedule is the desired exit SOC).
Conclusion
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 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAMELA JEPPSON whose telephone number is (571)272-4094. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30 AM - 5:00 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, 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 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.
/PAMELA J JEPPSON/Examiner, Art Unit 2859
/DREW A DUNN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2859