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
1. Claims 1-20 have been presented for examination based on the amendment filed on 09/18/2025.
2. Claim objection of Claim 7 is withdrawn based on the amendment filed on 09/18/2025.
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 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 USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The 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/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
3. Claims 1-20 of the instant application are provisionally rejected under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over the claims of co-pending application (No. 17/725,461). Both of these applications have same inventor/Assignee/disclosure and drawings. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the ‘461 application include all the limitations of this Application as well as additional limitations.
4. Claims 1-20 the instant application are provisionally rejected under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over the claims of co-pending application (No. 17/725,455). Both of these applications have same inventor/Assignee/disclosure and drawings. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the ‘455 application include all the limitations of this Application as well as additional limitations.
Response to Applicant’s arguments (USC 101)
Applicant asserts that the claimed invention “is an innovative (i.e. unconventional) way to achieve accurate prediction of charging demand distribution.". Applicant provides no support or evidence for this assertion. Applicant fails to identify any alleged improvements or benefits and fails to provide any explanation regarding how/why the use of "work charging access data" and "probability distribution of commute distances" are unconventional and improves the technique to achieve accurate prediction of charging demand distribution. Applicant asserts that the claims are integrated into a practical application (based on the alleged improvements stated above), However, as above, Applicant fails to identify what the practical application is and fails to explain how/why the claims are integrated into the alleged practical application. Applicant does not explain how/why the claimed "visitation prediction" is unconventionally accurate that would integrate the claimed invention into a practical application. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the claimed “visitation prediction” is designed to predict types of EV driver vising a POI in a conventional way.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
5. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 2A Prong One:
Independent claims 1, 10, and 15 recite the limitations:
based at least in part on an EV adoption model, generating an EV adoption prediction;
based at least in part on a mobility simulation model, generating a driver-type prediction that
predicts a percentage of EV drivers that qualify for each type of a plurality of types of EV
drivers;
based at least in part on the EV adoption prediction, the driver-type prediction, and a visitation
model, generating a visitation prediction that predicts how many EV drivers of each type
of EV driver will visit the POI;
based on how many EV drivers of each type of EV driver is predicted to visit the POI,
determining, for each type of EV charging station of a plurality of types of EV charging
stations, an optimal number of charging stations to install at the POI;
all of the above limitations are process steps that cover mental processes including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper.
Additionally, the amended limitation of “wherein the mobility simulation model generates the driver-type prediction based on work charging access data and a probability distribution of commute distances” is a mathematical relationship or calculation that could be done mentally or using simple pen and paper.
Said limitations in claims 1, 10, and 15 are a process that under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. Other than reciting “one or more computing devices”, “display device of a computing device” and “a non-transitory computer readable medium comprising instructions executable by a processor” in the claims nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas. As such claims 1, 10, and 15 recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims recite the additional element of a “one or more computing devices”, “display device of a computing device” and “a non-transitory computer readable medium comprising instructions executable by a processor” to perform the claimed steps at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. This additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The additional element of
generating a display, that reflects the optimal number of charging stations of each type of EV charging station to install at the POI;
The displaying is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to merely a data outputting step and is an insignificant post-solution activity [See MPEP 2106.05]. As such this additional element also does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Step 2B:
Finally, the post-processing step of displaying output values is categorized as insignificant extra solution activity under 2106.05(g). Claims 1, 10 and 15 only recite “one or more computing devices”, “display device of a computing device” and “a non-transitory computer readable medium comprising instructions executable by a processor” to perform the claimed steps and therefore only recite a general purpose computer rather than a specific machine under MPEP 2106.05(b), and are directed to mere instructions to apply the exception under MPEP 2106.05(f), and do not result in anything significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements have been considered both individually and as an ordered combination in the significantly more consideration. The inclusion of the computer or memory and controller to perform the predicting and generating steps amount to nor more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Claims 1, 10, and 15 are not patent eligible.
The dependent claims include the same abstract ideas recited in the independent claims, and merely incorporate additional details that narrow the abstract ideas and fail to add significantly more to the claims.
Dependent claims 2, 11 and 16 are directed to further limiting the types of EV drivers used in the prediction model, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mental Process”.
Dependent claims 3, 12 and 17 are directed to further limiting generating the driver-type prediction based at least in part on:
a probability distribution of ranges of EV vehicles; and
home charging access data;
which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mental Process”.
Dependent claims 4-9, 13-14 and 18-20 are directed to further determining the optimal number of each type of EV charging station based on prediction of:
a total number of sessions per day/per hour/at a peak hour,
a number of chargers in use at each hour of a day,
an amount of energy used,
a mean dwell time,
at the POI, for each type of EV charger- which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mental Process”.
Therefore, the claims 2-9, 11-14 and 16-20 are also not patent eligible.
Response to Applicant’s arguments
Applicant’s arguments regarding the rejection under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant Argument:
As best understood by Examiner, the summary of applicant’s argument is: the combinations of prior art do not teach "work charging access data and a probability distribution of commute distances".
Examiner’s response:
The examiner respectfully disagrees with applicant’s argument.
Examiner note that the primary prior art Pan in page 7 section 5.2, Figure 9 discloses a statistical distribution of an average travel distance of EV commuter which could be construed as the claimed probability distribution of commute distances. Furthermore, Pan in page 3 column 1-2, section 3.1; page 5 column 2 section 4.1 teaches models of a work and public charging station location based upon the demand- which is analogous to the claimed work charging access data. Therefore, the combination of prior art Pan and Sun discloses all the limitations of the amended independent claims including the ones in the argument.
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 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 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.
6. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Pan et al. hereafter Pan (A location model for electric vehicle (EV) public charging stations based on driver’s existing activities, Elsevier Ltd., 2020, pp 1-10), in view of Sun et al. hereafter Sun (Pub. No.: US 2016/0300170 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Pan discloses a method for determining an optimal number and mixture of types of electric vehicle (EV) charging stations for a point of interest (POI) (Pan: abstract), comprising:
based at least in part on an EV adoption model, generating an EV adoption prediction (Pan: page 2 column 1 paragraph 3: some of the data is set to be EV drivers based on the predicted EV adoption rate by assuming that these drivers do not change their daily trips and activities when switching from conventional vehicles);
based at least in part on a mobility simulation model, generating a driver-type prediction that predicts a percentage of EV drivers that qualify for each type of a plurality of types of EV drivers (Pan: page 2 column 1 paragraph 2: HC EV drivers and NHC EV drivers), wherein the mobility simulation model generates the driver-type prediction based on work charging access data (Pan: page 3 column 1-2, section 3.1; page 5 column 2 section 4.1: Work or public charging station) and a probability distribution of commute distances (Pan: page 7 section 5.2, Figure 9: note the statistical distributing of traveling distance);
based at least in part on the EV adoption prediction, the driver-type prediction, and a visitation model, generating a visitation prediction that predicts how many EV drivers of each type of EV driver will visit the POI (Pan: Figure 1 & 2, page 3 column 1-2 section 3.1: the deterministic process of EV charging choice decision, involving both HC EV drivers and NHC EV drivers);
based on how many EV drivers of each type of EV driver is predicted to visit the POI, determining, for each type of EV charging station of a plurality of types of EV charging stations, an optimal number of charging stations to install at the POI (Pan: Figure 2 page 4 column 1-2 & page 5 column 1, section 3.2: coverage location model of EV public charging station);
generating a display, on a display device of a computing device, that reflects the optimal number of charging stations of each type of EV charging station to install at the POI (Sun: Figure 2 & 6, [0043]: The graphical element may indicate a number hat represents the number of charging piles to be installed at that particular station);
wherein the method is performed by one or more computing devices (Sun: Figure 1, [0018], [0019]).
Pan and Sun are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor. They both relate to EV changing station.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the above location model of EV charging stations application, as taught by Pan, and incorporating the presentation of optimized location model, as taught by Sun.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to enabling accurate prediction of charging demand distribution., as suggested by Sun (Sun: [0015]).
Regarding Claims 10 and 15, the claims recite the same substantive limitations as Claim 1 and are rejected using the same teachings.
Regarding Claim 2, the combinations of Pan and Sun further disclose the method of Claim 1 wherein the plurality of types of EV drivers includes essential EV drivers and opportunistic EV drivers (Pan: page 2 column 1 paragraph 2: HC EV drivers and NHC EV drivers).
Regarding Claims 11 and 16, the claims recite the same substantive limitations as Claim 2 and are rejected using the same teachings.
Regarding Claim 3, the combinations of Pan and Sun further disclose the method of Claim 2 wherein the mobility simulation model generates the driver-type prediction based at least in part on:
a probability distribution of ranges of EV vehicles (Pan: page 3 column 1-2, section 3.1); and
home charging access data (Pan: page 3 column 1-2, section 3.1).
Regarding Claims 12 and 17, the claims recite the same substantive limitations as Claim 3 and are rejected using the same teachings.
Regarding Claim 4, the combinations of Pan and Sun further disclose the method of Claim 1 wherein the optimal number of each type of EV charging station is determined by a visitation model, and the visitation model is further configured to predict a total number of sessions per day, at the POI, for each type of EV charger (Pan: Figure 2, page 4 column 1-2 & page 5 column 1, section 3.2).
Regarding Claims 13 and 18, the claims recite the same substantive limitations as Claim 4 and are rejected using the same teachings.
Regarding Claim 5, the combinations of Pan and Sun further disclose the method of Claim 1 wherein the optimal number of each type of EV charging station is determined by a visitation model, and the visitation model is further configured to predict a number of sessions per hour, at the POI, for each type of EV charger (Pan: Figure 2, page 4 column 1-2 & page 5 column 1, section 3.2).
Regarding Claims 14 and 19, the claims recite the same substantive limitations as Claim 5 and are rejected using the same teachings.
Regarding Claim 6, the combinations of Pan and Sun further disclose the method of Claim 1 wherein the optimal number of each type of EV charging station is determined by a visitation model, and the visitation model is further configured to predict a number of sessions at a peak hour, at the POI, for each type of EV charger (Pan: Figure 2, page 4 column 1-2 & page 5 column 1, section 3.2).
Regarding Claim 20, the claim recites the same substantive limitations as Claim 6 and is rejected using the same teachings.
Regarding Claim 7, the combinations of Pan and Sun further disclose the method of Claim 1 wherein the optimal number of each type of EV charging station is determined by a visitation model, and the visitation model is further configured to predict a number of number of chargers in use at each hour of a day, at the POI, for each type of EV charger (Pan: Figure 2, page 4 column 1-2 & page 5 column 1, section 3.2).
Regarding Claim 8, the combinations of Pan and Sun further disclose the method of Claim 1 wherein the optimal number of each type of EV charging station is determined by a visitation model, and the visitation model is further configured to predict an amount of energy used, at the POI, for each type of EV charger (Pan: Figure 2, page 4 column 1-2 & page 5 column 1, section 3.2).
Regarding Claim 9, the combinations of Pan and Sun further disclose the method of Claim 1 wherein the optimal number of each type of EV charging station is determined by a visitation model, and the visitation model is further configured to predict a mean dwell time, at the POI, for each type of EV charger (Pan: Figure 2, page 4 column 1-2 & page 5 column 1, section 3.2).
Examination Considerations
7. Examiner has cited particular columns and line numbers (or paragraphs) in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific imitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the Applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner. The entire reference is considered to provide disclosure relating to the claimed invention.
8. The claims and only the claims form the metes and bounds of the invention. "Office personnel are to give the claims their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the supporting disclosure. In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 105455, 44USPQ2d 1023, 1027-28 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Limitations appearing in the specification but not recited in the claim are not read into the claim. In re Prater, 415 F.2d, 1393, 1404-05, 162 USPQ 541, 550-551 (CCPA 1969)" (MPEP p 2100-8, c 2, I 45-48; p 2100-9, c 1, I 1-4). The Examiner has full latitude to interpret each claim in the broadest reasonable sense. Examiner will reference prior art using terminology familiar to one of ordinary skill in the art. Such an approach is broad in concept and can be either explicit or implicit in meaning.
9. Examiner's Notes are provided with the cited references to prior art to assist the applicant to better understand the nature of the prior art, application of such prior art and, as appropriate, to further indicate other prior art that maybe applied in other office actions. Such comments are entirely consistent with the intent and spirit of compact prosecution. However, and unless otherwise stated, the Examiner's Notes are not prior art but a link to prior art that one of ordinary skill in the art would find inherently appropriate.
Conclusion
10. Claims 1-20 are rejected.
11. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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.
Correspondence Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to IFTEKHAR A KHAN whose telephone number is (571)272-5699. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F from 9:00AM-6:00PM (CST). If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Emerson Puente can be reached on (571)272-3652. 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 Patent Center and the Private Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center or Private PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center and Private PAIR to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/IFTEKHAR A KHAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2187