DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination (RCE) under 37 CFR 1.114 was filed in this application on 10/08/2025 after a decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, but before the filing of a Notice of Appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit or the commencement of a civil action. The request, however, lacks the fee required by 37 CFR 1.17(e) and/or the submission required by 37 CFR 1.114. Accordingly, the RCE is improper and any time period running was not tolled by the filing of the improper request.
Response to Arguments
All claims have been previously presented, in applicant remarks applicant states that claims 1, 8, and 15 have been amended solely to improve their form which is not reflected in the submitted claim set dated 06/16/2026.
Applicant’s arguments regarding Gadh are persuasive, however, applicant makes no further arguments regarding the secondary reference of Takahashi.
Applicant's arguments filed 06/16/2026 have been fully considered but they are moot, new grounds of rejection are presented herein.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 1, 8 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as failing to set forth the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The claims recite the limitation "the first portion being a difference between a current charge level and a predefined maximum that is less than the energy needed", wherein "is less than the energy needed" is indefinite. In light of applicant arguments submitted 6 February 2026, examiner interprets this claim to mean "the first portion, being a difference between a current charge level and a predefined maximum, is less than the energy needed". As the claims currently read, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this claim is that the predefined maximum is less than the energy needed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-6, 8-9, 11-13, 15-16, and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Erozlu et al (US 20230038012 A1), Erozlu has a filing date of 12/21/2021
Regarding claim 1, Erozlu teaches a method, comprising: transmitting to a vehicle a first location to supply a battery of the vehicle with a first portion of energy needed for travel from a departure point to a destination, (¶0037 “[FIG 3] suggested route may include first route portion 305 from the current location of the electric vehicle 101 to indicator 310 of first charging station 311, second route portion 307 from indicator 310 of first charging station 311 to indicator 318 of second charging station 319”)
the first portion being a difference between a current charge level and a predefined maximum that is less than the energy needed; (¶0045 “[FIG 3] Based on this adjusted arrival SOC, processing circuitry 102 may determine that the recommended recharge SOC (e.g., the recharge SOC required at first charging station 311 to reach second charging station 319 with 15% SOC) is 70%”)
transmitting to the vehicle a second location to supply the battery with a remaining portion of the energy needed, (¶0037 “[FIG 3] suggested route may include first route portion 305 from the current location of the electric vehicle 101 to indicator 310 of first charging station 311, second route portion 307 from indicator 310 of first charging station 311 to indicator 318 of second charging station 319”)
wherein the remaining portion is sufficient to prevent the current charge level from falling below a predefined minimum, and wherein the predefined maximum and the predefined minimum define a charge capacity range; (¶0045 “[FIG 3] based on an adjusted arrival SOC of 25% at destination 208, processing circuitry 102 may determine that the recommended recharge SOC at second charging station 319 is 75%”)
in response to identifying that a charge of the battery is outside of the charge capacity range for greater than a threshold amount of time, calculate an update to the charge capacity range; (¶0040 “processing circuitry 102 may determine if electric vehicle 101 is expected to reach destination 208 using 80% or less of the current SOC. If processing circuitry 102 determines that electric vehicle 101 is expected to reach destination 208 using 80% or less of the current SOC, navigation interface 300 may display the initial route to destination 208 without any added charging stops”)
and transmitting the update to a battery charger of the vehicle, wherein the battery charger initiates charging of the battery to the charge level specified in the update. (¶0037 “suggested route may include first route portion 305 from the current location of the electric vehicle 101 to indicator 310 of first charging station 311”, ¶0059 “[FIG 4] At 424, processing circuitry 102 may update the initial route to include the added charging stations as waypoints”)
Similarly for claim 8 as applied to a server, comprising a processor that executes instructions stored in a memory. (¶0031 “communications circuitry and/or user device 138 may be in communication with one or more servers 140”, ¶0024 “Electric vehicle 101 may comprise processing circuitry 102, which may comprise processor 104 and memory 106”)
Similarly for claim 15 as applied to a non-transitory computer readable storage medium. (¶0024 “Electric vehicle 101 may comprise processing circuitry 102, which may comprise processor 104 and memory 106”)
Regarding claim 2, Erozlu teaches the method of claim 1. Erozlu further teaches comprising: providing a recommendation for the first location and the second location to the vehicle. (¶0037 “[FIG 3] suggested route may include first route portion 305 from the current location of the electric vehicle 101 to indicator 310 of first charging station 311, second route portion 307 from indicator 310 of first charging station 311 to indicator 318 of second charging station 319”)
Similarly for claim 9, Erozlu teaches the server of claim 8.
Similarly for claim 16, Erozlu teaches the non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 15.
Regarding claim 4, Erozlu teaches the method of claim 1. Erozlu further teaches comprising: identifying that battery charging events occur over a threshold period when the battery is charged to less than around 20% capacity [or when the battery is charged to greater than around 80% capacity]; (¶0045 “[FIG 3] Based on this adjusted arrival SOC, processing circuitry 102 may determine that the recommended recharge SOC (e.g., the recharge SOC required at first charging station 311 to reach second charging station 319 with 15% SOC) is 70%”)
and in response to the identifying that battery charging events occur over the threshold amount, adjusting a recommended charge capacity range to preserve the charge of the battery. (¶0053 “[FIG 4] At 412, processing circuitry 102 may determine if the destination is within the partial range… Otherwise (“No” at 412), processing may proceed to 416”, ¶0055 “[FIG 4] At 416, processing circuitry 102 may add a charging station based on a location corresponding to the partial range”)
Erozlu monitors the SOC of the vehicle, and updates the waypoints and charging stations along the way as needed. FIG 4 of Erozlu discloses determining that the existing route is out of range of the current SOC and adjusting the range to ensure
Similarly for claim 11, Erozlu teaches the server of claim 8.
Similarly for claim 18, Erozlu teaches the non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 15.
Regarding claim 5, Erozlu teaches the method of claim 1. Erozlu further teaches comprising: tracking the energy needed; (¶0035 “[FIG 2] navigation interface 200 may display icon 212 representing the current SOC of electric battery 110 of electric vehicle 101 based on information output by battery system 108”)
and updating a charging recommendation based on a position reached by the vehicle in a trip itinerary. (¶0053 “[FIG 4] At 412, processing circuitry 102 may determine if the destination is within the partial range… Otherwise (“No” at 412), processing may proceed to 416”, ¶0055 “[FIG 4] At 416, processing circuitry 102 may add a charging station based on a location corresponding to the partial range”)
Similarly for claim 12, Erozlu teaches the server of claim 8.
Similarly for claim 19, Erozlu teaches the non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 15.
Regarding claim 6, Erozlu teaches the method of claim 1. Erozlu further teaches comprising: identifying that the current charge level has [exceeded the predefined maximum or] dropped below the predefined minimum; (¶0054 “it may be advantageous for electric vehicle 101 to arrive at charging stations with around 15% of the total capacity of electric battery 110 (e.g., to maximize charging rate while minimizing charging time during the trip)”)
and in response to the identifying that the current charge level has [exceeded the predefined maximum or] dropped below the predefined minimum, recommending that the battery be [discharged or] charged to [the predefined maximum or] the predefined minimum, respectively. (¶0045 “[FIG 3] based on an adjusted arrival SOC of 25% at destination 208, processing circuitry 102 may determine that the recommended recharge SOC at second charging station 319 is 75%”)
Similarly for claim 13, Erozlu teaches the server of claim 8.
Similarly for claim 20, Erozlu teaches the non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 15.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 3, 10, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Erozlu modified by Peng et al (US 20210203177 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Erozlu teaches the method of claim 1. Erozlu further teaches comprising: [determining that a power grid will be at peak usage when the battery receives the remaining portion;]
identifying an alternate location to supply the remaining portion [when the power grid is no longer at the peak usage and] before the current charge level falls below the predefined minimum; (¶0042 “[FIG 3] processing circuitry 102 may identify and select second charging station 319, which is 155 miles from first charging station 311”)
[and providing a recommendation for the alternate location to the vehicle. ]
Erozlu does not explicitly disclose using when the power grid will be at peak usage as a parameter for scheduling when and where the electric vehicle 101 charges. Erozlu ¶0031 discloses “processing circuitry 102 may be in communication (e.g., via communications circuitry 136) with user device 138… communications circuitry and/or user device 138 may be in communication with one or more servers 140 (e.g., over a communications network such as, for example, the Internet), which may be configured to provide information related to electric charging stations, information that can be used to determine driving range (e.g., elevation maps), charging locations, weather information, and/or mapping or GPS information to electric vehicle 101 and/or user device 138”. ¶0031 indicates that the infrastructure for Erozlu, particularly processing circuity 102, determines when and where electric vehicle 101 charges based on information related to the electric charging stations.
Erozlu does not teach comprising: determining that a power grid will be at peak usage when the battery receives the remaining portion;
[identifying an alternate location to supply the remaining portion] when the power grid is no longer at the peak usage and [before the current charge level falls below the predefined minimum;
and providing a recommendation for the alternate location to the vehicle.
Peng teaches comprising: determining that a power grid will be at peak usage [when the battery receives the remaining portion]; (¶0156 “[FIG 17] step 1708, the charging station 1240 and/or scheduler 1230 determine that the cost of power unexpectedly increased based on updated power provider attributes and/or changes in power consumption of the home power grid 1270”)
identifying an alternate [location] to supply the remaining portion when the power grid is no longer at the peak usage and before the current charge level falls below the predefined minimum; (¶0157 “[FIG 17] step 1712, the scheduler 1230 determines an updated charging schedule 1440 based on the power provider attributes and/or changes in power consumption of the home power grid 1270”)
and providing a recommendation [for the alternate location] to the vehicle. (¶0158 “[FIG 17] step 1716, the scheduler optionally notifies one or more users of the updated charging schedule 1440 and provides a user the opportunity to confirm the charging schedule 1440”)
Therefor it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the method as taught by Erozly to further comprise determining that a power grid will be at peak usage and providing a recommendation for the alternate location to the vehicle as taught by Peng. Erozlu and Peng both schedule a time and location for charging an electric vehicle, providing recommendations for users along their intended route. The method as taught by Erozlu already has the structure to receive information from the charging stations and incorporate it into recommending a charging station, it would be an obvious step to incorporate the charging station peak usage information as taught by Peng as part of that recommendation. The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to optimize user experience by minimizing operational cost and improving user convenience during road trips.
Similarly for claim 10, Erozlu teaches the server of claim 8.
Similarly for claim 17, Erozlu teaches the non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 15.
Claim(s) 7 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Erozlu modified by Takahashi et al (US 20120109443 A1)
Regarding claim 7, Erozlu teaches the method of claim 1. Erozlu does not teach comprising: determining that the vehicle will not move in a period of time; charging the battery to around 80% when the battery is below 80%; and discharging the battery to around 80% when the battery is above 80%.
Takahashi teaches comprising: determining that the vehicle will not move in a period of time; (¶0183 “FIG. 11 and FIG. 12, the ECU 40 determines in step S301 whether the current conditions of the vehicle are those preceding a start of plug-in charge, by grasping the status of the charger 28”)
charging the battery to around 80% when the battery is below 80%; (¶0107 "Through plug-in charging, the SOC of the battery 10-1 reaches a value (e.g., 80%)")
and discharging the battery to around 80% when the battery is above 80%. (¶0110 "charge/discharge control unit 57 controls charge/discharge of battery 10-1, so that the SOC is kept within a specified range", ¶0284 "step S405, the ECU 40 determines whether the SOC calculated in step S401 is outside a predetermined range (e.g., the range of 20 to 80%)")
Therefor it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the method as taught by Erozlu to charge the battery to around 80% when the battery is below 80% and discharge the battery to around 80% when the battery is above 80% as taught by Takahashi when the vehicle will not move in a period of time. A typical user of an electric vehicle will leave their vehicle plugged into a charger for an extended period of time, such as over-night. The method as taught by Erozlu monitors the current SOC of the electric vehicle 101 at all times, including when connected to a charging station. Takahashi also monitors the SOC of an electric vehicle connected to a charging station, and charges/discharges the battery to maintain overall state of health of the battery. The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to optimize the vehicle's travel range when scheduling charging locations as the battery degrades over time.
Similarly for claim 14, Erozlu teaches the server of claim 8.
Prior Art Not Relied Upon
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure can be found in the attached PTO-892 Notice of References Cited by Examiner attached to this correspondence.
Ball et al (US 20240022075 A1) discloses a charging plan rescheduling method which dynamically responds to changing conditions in the power network, however Ball has a filing date of 07/14/2022 and does not precede this application’s priority date.
Miller et al (US 20170168493 A1) discloses a method of identifying charging stations along a route which are within the SOC range of the vehicle.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LISA M KOTOWSKI whose telephone number is (571)270-3771. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8a-5p.
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, Julian Huffman can be reached at (571) 2722147. 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.
/LISA KOTOWSKI/Examiner, Art Unit 2859
/JULIAN D HUFFMAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2859
Prosecution Insights