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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments filed 06/03/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues on page 6, Claim 15 recites "limiting maximum noise emissions that the motor vehicle or the at least one electrical energy storage device is allowed to emit during the charging." The quoted feature in claim 15 (and similar features in claims 21 and 28) is an additional step that is a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking the use of the alleged abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. The claim limitation does not provide the technological improvement of how the maximum noise emissions can be 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.
The applicant further argues about the case Diamond V. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175 (1981), where the additional steps of installing rubber in a press, closing the mold, constantly measuring the temperature in the mold, and automatically opening the press at the proper time. These additional steps were found to be meaningful because they sufficiently limited the use of the mathematical equation to the practical application of molding rubber products. The examiner wants to point out that the measurement of temperature causing the opening, making it a practical application where opening the press because of the temperature contributed to the practical step. However, the present claim does not provide a step for how the limiting of the noise is achieved. There is no positive step recited in the claim which explains that the noise can be controlled by reducing the charging or stopping it, or turning off the specific component can limit it, which can make it a practical application.
Applicant further argues on page 8, “Ghebru does not disclose that the sources other than the motor vehicle comprise at least one of "a charging station that is used or is to be used for the charging, nearby charging stations, or other motor vehicles that are charged or are to be charged at other charging points of the charging station or at the nearby charging stations," as recited in amended claim 21.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. Ghebru discloses the positional data can be determined for example during the actual process of charging, which is to say when for instance the motor vehicle is positioned or electrically coupled at a charging station, but the data can be also detected for a position of the motor vehicle during recharging that is still to be assumed, for example when the motor vehicle is in the intended driving mode and it is about to drive up to a charging station. Ghebru further discloses the maximum value for the noise emission at the relevant position can be determined and then output, for example to the driver of the motor vehicle. The driver can then decide whether or which charging stations should be approached (paragraph [0017]). Above cited paragraph clearly shows that limiting the noise emission can be controlled by considering the charging station noise requirements at the particular charging station.
Applicants’ arguments, see page 9, filed 06/03/2026, with respect to claims 15, have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 USC 103 of claims 15, 19, 20, 27-29 has been withdrawn due to amendments.
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).
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 set 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 –
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 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]). and wherein the sources other than the motor vehicle comprise at least one of: a charging station that is used or is to be used for the charging, nearby charging stations, or other motor vehicles that are charged or are to be charged at other charging points of the charging station or at the nearby charging stations (paragraph [0017] shows that the positional data also include the maximum noise emission at the particular charging station).
Regarding claim 23, Ghebru further discloses wherein 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).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Bouman (US2018/0212438), and Kempton (US 2011/0202217).
Applicants’ 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 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
Prosecution Insights