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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1 – 20 were previously pending and subject to a final non-office action mailed 03/27/2025. Claims 1 – 20 were amended in a reply filed 06/26/2025. Claims 1 – 20 are currently pending and subject to the final office action below.
Novel/Nonobvious Subject Matter
Claims 1 – 20 remain allowed over the prior art.
Claims 1 – 20 are allowable over the prior art of record, however remain rejected under 35 USC 112(a) and 35 USC 101. It is noted that were the Applicant to amend the claims to overcome these rejections, the claims may or may not be allowable, as further consideration would be required of the prior art.
• Yaldo et al. (US 20200324667 A1) teaches wherein a score for EV charger is based on multiple data types which are provided by each EV to a server, including charger performance and charger condition in paras. [0059], [0071], [0089], & [0091] – [0092]. Yaldo, however, does not teach wherein the charger performance and charger condition are provided from each EV via charging cable to the server, nor does Yaldo teach wherein the EV charger scores are based on both charger availability information and charger performance information which are provided by a plurality of EV’s for a plurality of EV chargers.
• Diamond et al. (US 20230256856 A1) teaches wherein charger performance is received at a server from each EV in paras. [0020] – [0021] & [0036] – [0037], and also teaches ranking and presenting ranked lists of EV chargers in paras. [0031] & [0041]. Diamond, however, does not teach wherein a charger score is calculated using charger availability information and charger performance information which are provided by a plurality of EV’s for a plurality of EV chargers.
• Yu et al. (US 20230283986 A1), in, para. [0079], teaches using “observed charging rates” received from charging histories of EV’s at charging stations to determine “charging unit states,” indicating whether a “charging unit 202” is in an “in-service status” (i.e., “operational charging unit 202”) or whether a “charging unit 202” is in an “out-of-service status” (i.e., “non-operational charging unit 202”. Yu, in [0049], [0051], & [0077] – [0078], further teaches wherein uploaded “charging session data” (i.e., “observed charging rates”) includes “an average charging rate, a minimum charging rate, a maximum charging rate.” Yu, however, does not teach wherein a charger score is calculated using charger availability information and charger performance information which are provided by a plurality of EV’s for a plurality of EV chargers.
The combined teachings of the cited references fail to render obvious the combination of claimed elements, including transmitting both charger performance and charger availability information via a charger cable from multiple EV’s to a server which calculates a score for each EV charger and outputs an identification of a subsequent EV charger based on a comparison of the EV charger scores.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the previous claim rejections under 35 USC 112(a) have been considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that “the Specification includes several examples that provide description that goes beyond just “functional language only,” and points to [0069] of the instant specification for written support for the limitation (claim 1): “generate, based on the availability of the first charging station, the availability of the second charging station, the performance of the first charging station, and the performance of the second charging station, a score for the first charging station and a score for the second charging station.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees that the instant specification provides written support for how “a score for the first charging station and a score for the second charging station” are generated. In particular, the instant specification does not contain any detail as to what formulas, algorithms, sequences of mathematical steps, or processes of determination, are used to compute the scores. Paragraph [0069] merely states that availability data may be weighted, and also that an “ML or AI model” can input “availability data 440” to output “a score for the CS 405.” This section fails to provide any detail on how the score is calculated, while omitting any mention of how the “performance” of a charging station is used to generate the score. The claims require generating the scores using both “availability” and “performance” – yet the instant specification is devoid of a description for how this is accomplished. As such, the rejections under 35 USC 112(a) are maintained.
The claims filed 06/26/2025 have overcome the previous rejections under 35 USC 112(b).
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the previous claim rejections under 35 USC 101 have been considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that “independent claim 1 integrates any alleged abstract idea into a practical application.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees, because the additional elements of “data processing system having one or more processors,” “processors,” “processor,” “memory” and “non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions” are recited at a high-level of generality, such that, when viewed as whole/ordered combination, amount to no more than mere instruction to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components or “apply it” (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). The additional elements of: “first electric vehicle,” “via a display device,” “captured by the first electric vehicle via a power cable that couples the first electric vehicle with the first charging station,” “second electric vehicle,” and “captured by the second electric vehicle via a power cable that couples the second electric vehicle with the second charging station” amount to generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(h)). Accordingly, these additional elements, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 recites the limitation: “generate, based on the availability of the first charging station, the availability of the second charging station, the performance of the first charging station, and the performance of the second charging station, a score for the first charging station and a score for the second charging station;”
Claim 12 recites the limitation: “generating, by the one or more processors, based on the availability of the first charging station, the availability of the second charging station, the performance of the first charging station, and the performance of the second charging station, a score for the first charging station and a score for the second charging station;”
Claim 20 recites the limitation: “generate, based on the availability of the first charging station and the availability of the second charging station, the performance of the first charging station, and the performance of the second charging station, a score for the first charging station and a score for the second charging station;”
A review of the instant specification yielded the following relevant sections:
[0066] “…Determined performance can be used for scoring or ranking CSs 405 and can be stored in performance data 445. CIM 450 can include an ML model trainer to train scoring function 465 to use availability data 440 determined by availability function 455 and performance data of one or more CSs 405 determined by performance function 460 to determine and provide scores of the one or more CISs 405 as outputs.”
[0069] “…Availability function 455 can include ML or AI model to use availability data 440 as input to provide a score for the CS 405 as output. The output score can include availability score for one or more CSs 405.”
[0071] “Scoring function 465 any combination of hardware and software, such as scripts, functions and computer code stored in memory or operating on a processor for determining a score for one or more CSs 405. Scoring function 465 can determine a score for a CS 405 based on availability data 440, performance data 445 and a combination of availability data 440 and performance data 445. Scoring function 465 can determine the score using a rule-based model of the scoring function 465. For example, a scoring function 465 can use rules to weigh different performance data 445 or weight different availability data 440 to determine a score for a CS 405. Scoring function 465 can determine the score using a ML or AI model of the scoring function 465. For example, a scoring function 465 can use performance data 445 as input into a ML or AI model or use availability data 440 as input into the same or different ML model of the scoring function to output a score for a CS 405. Scores for each of the CSs 405 can be stored into data structures of database of the DPS 485.”
[00101] “At ACT 520, the method scores charging stations. The one or more processors can generate a score for the charging station based on the availability and the performance. For example, data processing system can utilize a model to generate a score based on the availability determined at ACT 510 and performance determined at ACT 515. The model can be a rules-based model. The model can be a machine learning or an artificial intelligence model. The data processing system can determine the score for a charging station as an output of ML or AI model based on availability determined at ACT 510 and performance 515 determined at ACT 515 being input into the ML or AI model. The one or more processors can generate updated score for the charging station and the second updated score for the second charging station based on updated availability and updated performance determined at ACTS 510 and 515. For example, a data processing system can determine a score for a charging station and receive updated information on the charging station. The data processing system can determine an updated score for the charging station based on the updated information.”
Original claims may fail to satisfy the written description requirement when the invention is claimed and described in functional language but the specification does not sufficiently identify how the invention achieves the claimed function. Ariad, 598 F.3d at 1349. See MPEP §2161.01(I).
While the applicant specifies above that scores for charging stations can be calculated by a scoring function based on rules to weight availability and performance data, and that an ML or AI model can be used to output scores based on input availability and performance data, there is no written content as to how a score for the first charging station and a score for the second charging station are calculated (i.e. formulas, algorithms, sequence of mathematical steps, process of determination, for example), such that it is clear to a person skilled in the art that the Applicant was in possession of the claimed invention. For example, the models discussed in the instant specification appear to be mere “black boxes” for which data can be inputted to create an output score – without any detail or transparency as to what formulas, algorithms, sequences of mathematical steps, or processes of determination, are used to compute the scores. The disclosure describes these steps in functional language only – without a "how," or a mechanism, for computing these scores. As such, claims 1, 12, & 20 are rejected as failing the written description requirement. The written description requirement can be satisfied if the particular steps, i.e., algorithm, necessary to perform the claimed function were “described in the specification.” In re Hayes Microcomputer Prods., Inc. Patent Litigation, 982 F.2d 1527, 1533-34, 25 USPQ2d 1241, (Fed. Cir. 1992).
Claim 11 recites the limitation: “generate, based on the updated availability of the first charging station, the updated performance of the first charging station, the updated availability of the second charging station, and the updated performance of the second charging station, an updated score for the first charging station and an updated score for the second charging station,” while claim 19 recites the limitation: “generating, by the one or more processors based on the updated availability of the first charging station, the updated performance of the first charging station, the updated availability of the second charging station, and the updated performance of the second charging station, an updated score for the first charging station and an updated score for the second charging station.” Claims 11 & 19 are likewise rejected for the reasons outlined above (i.e., lack of written description for how the “updated” scores are calculated).
In addition, 2 – 11 & 13 – 19 depend upon claims 1 & 12, but fail to remedy the deficiencies, and therefore are rejected for inheriting the deficiencies.
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.
Claims 1 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
Claims 1 – 11 are directed to a system (i.e., a machine); claims 12 – 19 are directed to a method (i.e., a process); claim 20 is directed to a product. Therefore, claims 1 – 20 all fall within the one of the four statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A, Prong One
Independent claims 1, 12, & 20 substantially recite: “receive… first data regarding a first charging station, the first data regarding the first charging station including: first information corresponding to performance of the first charging…; and second information corresponding to availability of the first charging station; receive… second data regarding a second charging station, the second data regarding the second charging station including: third information corresponding to performance of the second charging station…; and fourth information corresponding to availability of the second charging station;
determine, based on the second information and the fourth information, the availability of the first charging station and the availability of the second charging station; determine, based on the first information corresponding to the performance of the first charging station and the third information corresponding to the performance of the second charging station, the performance of the first charging station and the performance of the second charging station; generate, based on the availability of the first charging station, the availability of the second charging station, the performance of the first charging station, and the performance of the second charging station, a score for the first charging station and a score for the second charging station; and cause, based on a comparison of the score for the first charging station and the score for the second charging station, an indication to be displayed…, the indication to identify the first charging station or the second charging station for subsequent charging.”
The limitations stated above are processes that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in a commercial interaction. That is, the functions in the context of the claims encompass recommending particularly suitable EV chargers for recharging transactions. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in a commercial interaction, then it falls within the "Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity" grouping of abstract ideas e.g., “commercial or legal interactions (including marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations).” Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claims 1, 12, & 20, as a whole, amounts to: merely invoking generic components as a tool to perform the abstract idea or “apply it” (or an equivalent), as well as generally linking the recited judicial exception to a particular field or technological environment. Claim 1 recites the additional generic computer components of “data processing system having one or more processors” and “memory.” Claim 12 recites the additional generic computer components of “processors.” Claim 20 recites the additional generic computer components of “non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions” and “processor.” Claims 1, 12, & 20 also recite the additional elements of: “first electric vehicle,” “captured by the first electric vehicle via a power cable that couples the first electric vehicle with the first charging station,” “second electric vehicle,” “via a display device,” and “captured by the second electric vehicle via a power cable that couples the second electric vehicle with the second charging station.”
The additional elements of “data processing system having one or more processors,” “processors,” “processor,” “memory” and “non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions” are recited at a high-level of generality, such that, when viewed as whole/ordered combination, it amounts to no more than mere instruction to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components or “apply it” (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The additional elements of: “first electric vehicle,” “via a display device,” “captured by the first electric vehicle via a power cable that couples the first electric vehicle with the first charging station,” “second electric vehicle,” and “captured by the second electric vehicle via a power cable that couples the second electric vehicle with the second charging station” amount to generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Accordingly, these additional elements, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B
As discussed above with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements amount to no more than merely invoking generic components as a tool to perform the abstract idea or “apply it” (or an equivalent), as well as generally linking the recited judicial exception to a particular field or technological environment, and do not provide integration of the recited abstract ideas into a practical application. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e., merely invoking the generic components as a tool to perform the abstract idea or “apply it” (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept at Step 2B.
Therefore, the additional elements of: “data processing system having one or more processors,” “processors,” “processor,” “memory,” “non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions,” “first electric vehicle,” “captured by the first electric vehicle via a power cable that couples the first electric vehicle with the first charging station,” “via a display device,” “second electric vehicle,” and “captured by the second electric vehicle via a power cable that couples the second electric vehicle with the second charging station” fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept at Step 2B. Thus, even when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, nothing in the claims adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. There is no indication that the combination of elements, taken both individually and as an ordered combination, improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Thus, the claims are not patent eligible.
Furthermore, dependent claims 2 – 11 & 13 – 19 are merely directed to the particulars of the abstract idea and likewise do not add significantly more to the above-identified judicial exception. The limitations of the claims, when considered both individually and as an ordered combination, do not transform the abstract idea that they recite into patent-eligible subject matter because the claims simply instruct the practitioner to implement the abstract idea with generic computer components that conduct generic computer functions within a certain field of use, and thus are ineligible.
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 BRYAN J KIRK whose telephone number is (571)272-6447. The examiner can normally be reached Monday -Friday 9:00-5:00.
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, Shannon Campbell can be reached at (571)272-5587. 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.
/BRYAN J KIRK/Examiner, Art Unit 3628
/SHANNON S CAMPBELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3628