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 under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 2/27/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 9, filed 02/27/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 15 under 35 USC 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Kempton (US 2011/0202217).
Applicant's arguments filed 02/27/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant arguments, see page 11, “Ghebru does not disclose acquiring the recited surroundings value that indicates noise emissions that are emitted or predicted to be emitted in surroundings of the motor vehicle by sources other than the motor vehicle”.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. Ghebru discloses that in a position near a highway resting place where a high level of noise is present in any case, correspondingly high cooling power is provided because a maximum value for the noise emission is also high in such a case (paragraph [0018]), which shows that the noise of the surrounding of the vehicle other than the motor vehicle also taking into account during charging and discharging of the vehicle.
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 15, 19-21, 23, 24 and 26-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
This rejection will follow the SME test steps outlined in MPEP 2106.
Regarding claim 15, Step 1: The claim recites a method and its steps, and therefore is a process which is a statutory category of invention.
Step 2A Prong One: The claim recites a process to acquire an identification number of the charging point, determine a maximum noise limit and setting the limit for the maximum noise emission. It is all manipulation of the data done with the help of mathematical formulas. Such mental observations or evaluations fall within the “mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas set forth in the 2019 PEG. 2019 PEG Section I, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52.
Prong 2: the claim recites the additional elements of a motor vehicle and an electrical energy storage device.
However, these additional elements do not integrate into a practical application.
The motor vehicle and electrical energy storage device are recited at a high level of generality and merely provide an environment in which the abstract idea is applied.
The step of limiting the maximum noise emissions allowed to emit during charging amounts to controlling an allowed charging level without reciting any specific improvement in how charging or noise emission is achieved.
The maximum charging limit parameter is a result-oriented parameter without reciting a specific technological mechanism for achieving the limitation, and the noise emissions are achieved through adjustment of a parameter based on analyzed data, rather than a technological improvement.
Step 2B: the additional elements of a motor vehicle and energy storage device, when considered individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception since they are well understood, routine, and conventional (WURC) components in the field of EV charging, as evidenced by Ghebru et al. (Abstract, “electrically drivable motor vehicle” with “accumulator device”).
Regarding claims 19-20, and 26-29, the claims are dependent on claim 15 and do not include any additional element to amount significantly more. Thus, the claims are also not eligible.
Regarding claim 21, Step 1: the claim is directed towards a process (MPEP 2106.03).
Step 2A: Prong 1 (MPEP 2106.04), the claim recites the abstract idea of using a surroundings value that indicates noise emissions and a maximum charging limit parameter to limit maximum noise emissions allowed for a motor vehicle during charging. This is a mental process that can be performed in the human mind. To the extent that analysis involves calculations, such calculations also fall within mathematical concepts.
Prong 2, the claim recites the additional elements of a motor vehicle and an electrical energy storage device.
However, these additional elements do not integrate into a practical application.
The motor vehicle and electrical energy storage device are recited at a high level of generality and merely provide an environment in which the abstract idea is applied.
The step of limiting the maximum noise emissions allowed to emit during charging amounts to an application of the abstract idea to control an allowed charging level without reciting any specific improvement in how charging or noise emission is achieved.
The maximum charging limit parameter is a result-oriented parameter without reciting a specific technological mechanism for achieving the limitation, and the noise emissions are achieved through adjustment of a parameter based on analyzed data, rather than a technological improvement.
Under Step 2B, the additional elements of a motor vehicle and energy storage device, when considered individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception since they are well understood, routine, and conventional (WURC) components in the field of EV charging, as evidenced by Ghebru et al. (Abstract, “electrically drivable motor vehicle” with “accumulator device”).
Regarding claims 23-24, the claims are dependent on claim 21 and do not include any additional element to amount significantly more. Thus, the claims are also not eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 21, 23-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being unpatentable by Ghebru et al. (US 2017/0240058), herein after Ghebru.
Regarding claim 21, Ghebru discloses a method (fig) for charging at least one electrical energy storage device of a motor vehicle (Abstract), the method comprising:
acquiring a surroundings value, wherein the surroundings value indicates noise emissions that are emitted or predicted to be emitted in surroundings of the motor vehicle by sources other than the motor vehicle (paragraph [0013], paragraph [0018]; The charging of the EV is controlled based on positional data, which also depends on the surrounding value, e.g. in paragraph [0018], near the highway area the full noise charging is allowed because it is already a high noise area);
specifying at least one maximum charging limit parameter corresponding to maximum noise emissions for the motor vehicle for the charging (paragraph [0012]); and using the surrounding value and the specification of the at least one maximum charging limit parameter to limit the maximum noise emissions that the motor vehicle or the at least one electrical energy storage device are allowed to emit during the charging (paragraph [0012], [0013], [0018] ), wherein the at least one maximum charging limit parameter is a maximum charging power or a maximum charging current (the control unit can maintain the maximum value for the noise emission of the electric air-conditioning compressor, which is in this case reduced, with targeted lowering of the rotational speed. As a result, however, only a reduced cooling power will be provided for the high-voltage battery. For that reason, the maximum charging current for the high-voltage battery and the voltage output is limited, paragraph [0036]).
Regrading claim 23, Ghebru further discloses wherein the at least one maximum charging limit parameter is determined taking into consideration a motor vehicle type or a motor vehicle class of the motor vehicle (paragraph [0021]).
Regrading claim 24, Ghebru further discloses wherein the maximum noise emissions are limited using at least one of a day of a week, a time of the day, or a date on which the motor vehicle is charged (paragraph [0027]note: The charging time period can additionally also be dependent on other factors, for example on the external temperature, the time of day and/or the like).
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.
Claim(s) 15, 19-20, 27-29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ghebru (US 2017/0240058), and Kempton (US 2011/0202217).
Regarding claim 15, Ghebru discloses a method for charging at least one electrical energy storage device of a motor vehicle, the method comprising:
acquiring an identification number of a charging point from the charging point (determine in step 12 the positional data for a position of the electric vehicle during charging, paragraph [0032]; the positional data include the identification of the charging point);
determining a maximum noise limit value of the charging point (the control unit is configured to determine in step 14 based on the determined positional data the maximum value for noise emission, while taking into account noise emission positional data, which is provided in the motor vehicle positional data, paragraph [0033]),
wherein the maximum noise limit value is indicative of the maximum noise emissions that the motor vehicle or the at least one electrical energy storage device are allowed to emit during the charging (paragraph [0033]);
and limiting maximum noise emissions that the motor vehicle or the at least one electrical energy storage device are allowed to emit during the charging by using the maximum noise limit value (The adjustment of the cooling power is carried out in step 18 based on the characteristic curve field while taking into account an external temperature in the area of the position of the motor vehicle, paragraph [0034]).
However, Ghebru does disclose that the charging of the vehicle can be control based on the position of the charging point to reduce the noise emission (paragraph [0012]), but does not explicitly disclose acquiring an identification number of a charging point from the charging point and control the charging of the vehicle based on the identification number.
Kempton discloses a system for communication between electric vehicle (102, fig. 3) and the charging station (104, fig. 2) where the charging method comprising: acquiring an identification number of a charging point from the charging point (CAN-bus connection may be authorized from EVSE 104 through the vehicle CAN-bus (if appropriate). EVSE 104 may be authorized to have full access to the vehicle CAN-bus based on EVSE serial number or model number with or without an encrypted key, paragraph [0053]); and control the charging of the vehicle based on the identification number (EVSE attributes are information relating to EVSE such as its status, location, and other information. This may include: characteristics of EVSE's physical capabilities; legal and administrative allowances; legal and administrative restrictions paragraph [0034] shows that EVSE’s identification number can be used to control the charging and discharging of the electric vehicle based on different attributes (where the administrative restriction can be noise limitation as taught by Ghebru)).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Ghebru’s system of controlling the noise of charging of an EV to include acquiring the identification number of the charging station and controlling the charging according to attributes linked as taught by Kempton, in order to apply a reduced charging mode at charging points where the noise reduction is desired, to improve user comfort and comply with the environmental restrictions.
Regarding claim 19, Ghebru further discloses wherein the maximum noise limit value is determined in the motor vehicle (paragraph [0012]).
Regarding claim 20, Ghebru discloses wherein the motor vehicle receives the maximum noise limit value from a server (paragraph [0023]; Note: the method include a communication network (for electric vehicle) capable of communicating with the corresponding databank).
Regrading claim 27, Ghebru discloses a motor vehicle comprising: at least one energy storage device, wherein the motor vehicle configured to carry out the method according to claim 15 (the process starts in step 10 with the charging of an accumulator of an electrically.
Regrading claim 28, Ghebru discloses a motor vehicle comprising: at least one energy storage device (paragraph [0031]), wherein the motor vehicle is configured: determine a maximum noise limit value using the identification of the charging point (the control unit is configured to determine in step 14 based on the determined positional data the maximum value for noise emission, while taking into account noise emission positional data, which is provided in the motor vehicle positional data, paragraph [0033]), wherein the maximum noise limit value is indicative of the maximum noise emissions that the motor vehicle or the at least one electrical energy storage device are allowed to emit during the charging (paragraph [0033]); and to limit maximum noise emissions that the motor vehicle or the at least one energy storage device are allowed to emit during a charging process using the maximum noise limit value (The adjustment of the cooling power is carried out in step 18 based on the characteristic curve field while taking into account an external temperature in the area of the position of the motor vehicle, paragraph [0034]).
However, Ghebru does disclose that the charging of the vehicle can be control based on the position of the charging point to reduce the noise emission (paragraph [0012]), but does not explicitly disclose acquiring an identification number of a charging point from the charging point and control the charging of the vehicle based on the identification number.
Kempton discloses a system for communication between electric vehicle (102, fig. 3) and the charging station (104, fig. 2) where the charging system comprising: acquire an identification number of a charging point from the charging point (CAN-bus connection may be authorized from EVSE 104 through the vehicle CAN-bus (if appropriate). EVSE 104 may be authorized to have full access to the vehicle CAN-bus based on EVSE serial number or model number with or without an encrypted key, paragraph [0053]); and control the charging of the vehicle based on the identification number (EVSE attributes are information relating to EVSE such as its status, location, and other information. This may include: characteristics of EVSE's physical capabilities; legal and administrative allowances; legal and administrative restrictions paragraph [0034] shows that EVSE’s identification number can be used to control the charging and discharging of the electric vehicle based on different attributes (where the administrative restriction can be noise limitation as taught by Ghebru)).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Ghebru’s system of controlling the noise of charging of an EV to include acquiring the identification number of the charging station and controlling the charging according to attributes linked as taught by Kempton, in order to apply a reduced charging mode at charging points where the noise reduction is desired, to improve user comfort and comply with the environmental restrictions.
Regrading claim 29, Ghebru further discloses a computer product comprising a non-transitory computer readable medium having stored thereon program instructions that, when executed by a processor, carries out the method according to claim 15 (the method of fig is done with the help of control unit, paragraph [0011]; see the rejection of claim 15; the control unit can use a non-transitory computer-readable medium to store and execute instructions that carry out a method).
Claim(s) 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ghebru (US 2017/0240058), and Kempton (US 2011/0202217) as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Bouman (US 2018/0212438).
Regarding claim 26, Ghebru in view of Kempton discloses the method of claim 15. Ghebru further discloses a method for charging multiple motor vehicles at multiple charging points, the method comprising: in each of the motor vehicles, limiting the maximum noise emissions that the motor vehicles are allowed to emit during the charging using the method according to claim 15 (see the rejection of claim 15 above). However, they are silent over wherein at least one of maximum noise limit values or charging limit parameters are selected such that noise emissions jointly emitted by the multiple motor vehicles, or noise emissions jointly emitted by the multiple motor vehicles and the multiple charging points do not exceed a limit value for surroundings noise emissions.
Bouman discloses wherein at least one of maximum noise limit values or charging limit parameters are selected such that noise emissions jointly emitted by the multiple motor vehicles, or noise emissions jointly emitted by the multiple motor vehicles and the multiple charging points do not exceed a limit value for surroundings noise emissions (paragraph [0028]-[0029]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of claimed invention to modify Ghebru’s method in view of Kempton to include the step of taking consideration of other vehicles noises as taught by Bouman, in order to reduce overall noise produced by charging infrastructure and in return create quieter and more peaceful urban environment.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SADIA KOUSAR whose telephone number is (571)272-3386. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:30am-5:30pm.
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) 272-2147. 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.
SADIA . KOUSAR
Examiner
Art Unit 2859
/JULIAN D HUFFMAN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2859