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
2. This Office Action responds to the Amendment filed on 3/18/2026.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Response to Applicant’s Remarks
3. With respect to Applicant’s remarks, the following are addressed:
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 13-16 have been considered but are moot in view of new ground of rejection of the claims as cited below.
In the current rejection(s) of claims 13-16, newly cited prior art Ferguson teaches wherein a time or time window of the future charge event is predicted by a charge event prediction module of a controller of the EV (See Para [0048], i.e. the power system analyzer 410 and/or the power mode selector 440 may be implemented by the EV 110, See Para [0050], i.e. The power system analyzer 410 can also predict the response of the battery 150 to planned charge and discharge events based on the historical battery data for the battery 150) – therefore, the combination of Peterman et al. in view of Palmer and further in view of Ferguson et al. discloses the limitations of claim 13-16 as cited below.
Claims 1-12 and 17-20 are now indicated as allowed.
The rejection(s) of the claims are as cited below. This office action is Final.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. 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.
5. Claim(s) 13-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peterman et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2024/0010099 A1) in view of Palmer (U.S. Pub. No. 2009/0024458 A1) and further in view of Ferguson et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0291693 A1).
As per claim 13, Peterman discloses:
An electric vehicle (EV) charging recommendation system, comprising: a processor storing executable instructions in non-transitory memory that, when executed, cause the processor (See Figure 1, i.e. Energy source balancer 102 & Para [0020], i.e. energy source balancer 102 can be referred to or include a data processing system) to:
establish a connection with a requesting EV (See Figure 1, i.e. vehicle 152 connect with network communicate with Energy Source Balancer 102, See Para [0020], i.e. energy source balancer 102…communicate via a network), wherein the processor is external to the requesting EV (See Figure 1, i.e. Energy source balancer 102 & Para [0020], i.e. energy source balancer 102 can be referred to or include a data processing system);
receive a set of battery charging parameters of the requesting EV via the connection (See Para [0029], i.e. user preference, See Para [0044]-[0047], i.e. route depend on various user preferences 116…maximum charges state…preference for use of charging station…having renewable resource-based power …conveyed to the energy source balancer 102, See Para [0049]-[0050], i.. preference … keep battery charge between 20% and 80% [prior art include user preference that select parameter for battery charging is considered as the selecting as cited above]);
generate a charging recommendation for a future charge event of the EV based at least partly on the set of battery charging parameters (See Para [0031]-[0034], i.e. charger selector 104 can rank a plurality of charging stations, See Para [0042]-[0044], i.e. display the charging station … elevated prominence, See Para [0053]-[0057], See Para [0054], i.e. charging station…first level of prominence, See Figure 3 –[prior art recommend charging station as illustrate in Figure 3]);
transmit the charging recommendation to the EV via the connection (See Para [0029], i.e. user preference, See Para [0044]-[0047], i.e. route depend on various user preferences 116…maximum charges state…preference for use of charging station…having renewable resource-based power …conveyed to the energy source balancer 102, See Para [0049]-[0050], i.. preference … keep battery charge between 20% and 80% -[prior art communicate the battery parameter over a network to the energy source balancer (See Figure 1), is considered as the transmit as cited above]); and
store the set of battery charging parameters in a database of the non-transitory memory (See Para [0029], i.e. user preference, See Para [0044]-[0047], i.e. route depend on various user preferences 116…maximum charges state…preference for use of charging station…having renewable resource-based power …conveyed to the energy source balancer 102, See Para [0049]-[0050], i.. preference … keep battery charge between 20% and 80%).
Peterman does not disclose the limitations: transmitting and receiving data over the connection is a secure anonymous connection.
However, Palmer discloses the limitations: transmitting and receiving data over the connection is a secure anonymous connection (See Figure 2 & Para [0063], i.e. a secure, anonymous connection is established with LPS 110 by OBU 103, See Para [0129], i.e. a secure, anonymous Internet connection is established with LPS 110).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the
art at the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teaching of Palmer into
the teaching of Peterman because it would prevent third party to interrogate a database
and track movement of a vehicle (See Para [0004]).
Peterman and Palmer does not discloses the limitations: wherein a time or time window of the future charge event is predicted by a charge event prediction module of a controller of the EV.
However, Ferguson discloses: wherein a time or time window of the
future charge event is predicted by a charge event prediction module of a controller of the EV (See Para [0048], i.e. the power system analyzer 410 and/or the power mode selector 440 may be implemented by the EV 110, See Para [0050], i.e. The power system analyzer 410 can also predict the response of the battery 150 to planned charge and discharge events based on the historical battery data for the battery 150).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the
art at the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teaching of Ferguson
into the teaching of Peterman and Palmer because it would allow for car charger to
operate in bypass mode which distribute power to subsystems of an electric vehicle
(See [0010]-[0016]).
As per claim 14, Peterman and Palmer and Ferguson discloses all of the features of claim 13 as discloses above wherein Peterman also discloses wherein generating the charging recommendation for the future charge event of the EV further comprises: determining a set of candidate charging stations for the EV, based on one or more battery charging parameters, the one or more battery charging parameters including at least one of a location of the EV and a route of the EV (See Para [0033]-[0034], i.e. selected route) estimating cost and preference metrics for each candidate charging station; estimating sustainability metrics for each candidate charging station, based on assigning an environmental cost value to a future charge event of the EV at each of the candidate charging stations (See Para [0053]-[0054], i.e. the cost, portion of renewable energy, carbon intensity); ranking the future charge events based on the sustainability, cost, and preference metrics; selecting one or more charge options for the EV from the ranked future charge events; and including the one or more charge options in the charging recommendation transmitted to the EV (See Para [0031]-[0034], i.e. charger selector 104 can rank a plurality of charging stations, See Para [0042]-[0044], i.e. display the charging station … elevated prominence, See Para [0053]-[0057], See Para [0054], i.e. charging station…first level of prominence, See Figure 3).
As per claim 15, Peterman and Palmer and Ferguson discloses all of the features of claim 14 as discloses above wherein Peterman also discloses wherein ranking the future charge events based on the sustainability, cost, and preference metrics further comprises using a machine learning (ML) model to rank the future charge events, the ML model taking as input the environmental cost values, the set of battery charging parameters, and the candidate charging stations, the ML model trained on historical charge event data of the EV (See Para [0037], i.e. model trained using machine learning applied to historical charging session information).
As per claim 16, Peterman and Palmer and Ferguson discloses all of the features of claim 14 as discloses above wherein Peterman also discloses wherein assigning the environmental cost value to the future charge event of the EV further comprises: assigning an environmental impact rate / kWh to the future charge event based on one more charging scenarios, the one or more charging scenarios based on differing mixes of energy sources supplying energy for the future charge event; and adjusting the environmental impact rate / kWh based on one or more of: on-site infrastructure components; ongoing infrastructure servicing needs; vehicle and infrastructure battery degradation impacts and lifetime energy output; operational power needs; efficiency losses; local land use impacts; and distance deviation from an intended route of the EV (See Para [0031]-[0034], i.e. charger selector 104 can rank a plurality of charging stations, See Para [0042]-[0044], i.e. display the charging station … elevated prominence, See Para [0053]-[0057], See Para [0054], i.e. charging station…first level of prominence, See Figure 3 –[prior art rank chargers based on distance and mix of renewable and non-renewable energy is considered as the assigning as cited above]).
Allowable Subject Matter
6. Claims 1-12 and 17-20 are allowed.
7. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Applicant’s remarks filed 3/18/2026 (Pages10-12) with respect to claims 1-12 and 17-20 are persuasive.
Conclusion
8. 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.
9. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NHA T NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-1405. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00AM-5:00PM.
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, Jack Chiang can be reached at 571-272-7483. 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.
/NHA T NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2851
Prosecution Insights