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 .
Specification
The amendment to the specification dated 10/20/2022 is accepted and made of record. Applicant’s statement of no new matter entered is acknowledged.
Drawings
The proposed drawing changes are not acceptable and are not entered. Although the names taken from the specification increases understanding of the invention at a glance, the complete removal of the original CTR1, ATD, etc. nomenclature is problematic. For example, the spelled-out names alone may not be spelled-out exactly the same way at every occurrence in the specification, which would introduce a level of confusion as well as potential 101 issues of support. Further, in instances where a patent issues from this application and needs to be translated (esp. machine translations) into foreign languages, the drawings would potentially cause problems as many times there are no exact translations for technical terms used in the drawings. In those instances, the original nomenclature CTR1, ATD, etc. would become critical for understanding the invention. Examiner recommends following either the suggestion in the original drawing objection, or maintaining the drawings as originally presented.
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)(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) 1-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by
JUERGEN, DE 102012011773 [See machine translated document, coded FOR).
Regarding claim 1, JUERGEN discloses a method for conducting a charging process at a charging point [par. 4], the method comprising:
establishing a near field interface [Fig. 1 (see reproduced below), near field communication device 18] between an authentication means of a user [mobile communication device 22 + the central computer] and the charging point [charging station 2, pars. 17, 23, 41, 68-71];
transmitting a user identification of the user signed using a signature key [pars. 32, 33] via the near field interface and authenticating the user by checking the signed user identification on the part of the charging point [pars. 18, 33 a private (i.e. signature) key is sent by device 22 which is then checked against the public key in the central computer];
reconciling a plurality of condition data sets [par. 26 load authorizations; par. 82 loading authorization] retained in a memory area of the authentication means with a plurality of condition data sets retained in a memory area of the charging point [par. 26 load authorizations sent by the user are checked by the central computer; par. 82 loading authorization], wherein an item of version information is assigned to at least one of the condition data sets and wherein a first condition data set is replaced by a second condition data set by the reconciliation in consideration of a comparison of the respective version information [par. 30, note that the measured value relates to the load authorizations; pars. 45-46 a version number of two types of identifiers, which encompasses the load authorizations, is transmitted and updated; pars. 82-83]; and authorizing the charging process by evaluating at least one of the condition data sets [pars. 33, 34, 47. See also pars. 51, 55]; charging an accumulator using the charging point only if the process is authorized [pars. 0032-0034, 0101, 0102].
PNG
media_image1.png
630
784
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, JUERGEN discloses the method as claimed in claim 1, wherein at least one of the plurality of the condition data sets is signed using a condition data set-based signature key [par. 30, pars. 45-46].
Regarding claim 3, JUERGEN discloses the method as claimed in claim 1, wherein a plurality of condition data sets are signed using a condition data set-based signature key [par. 30, note that the measured value relates to the load authorizations; pars. 45-46 a version number of two types of identifiers, which encompasses the load authorizations, is transmitted and updated].
Regarding claim 4, JUERGEN discloses the method as claimed in claim 2, wherein the condition data set-based signature key is derived from the signature key of the user [pars. 96, 97].
Regarding claim 5, JUERGEN discloses the method as claimed in claim 2, wherein the condition data set-based signature keys each differ [pars. 45-46 a version number of two types of identifiers, which encompasses the load authorizations, is transmitted and updated; par. 0054].
Regarding claim 6, JUERGEN discloses the method as claimed in claim 1, wherein at least one of the plurality of the condition data sets is encrypted using an encryption key [pars. 18, 33 a private key (i.e. encrypted) is sent by device 22 which is then checked against the public key in the central computer].
Regarding claim 7, JUERGEN discloses the method as claimed in claim 1, wherein a plurality of condition data sets is encrypted using an encryption key [pars. 18, 33 a private key (i.e. encrypted) key is sent by device 22 which is then checked against the public key in the central computer].
Regarding claims 8 and 10 [claim 8 is considered representative for purposes of itemization], JUERGEN discloses a system for charging an accumulator of a user [pars. 4, 9], the system comprising:
a user data-related memory area for accommodating a signature key and a user identification of the user [pars. 32, 33];
an interface unit [Fig. 1 (see reproduced above), near field communication device 18] for establishing a near field interface and for transmitting the user identification signed using the signature key [pars. 17, 23, 41, 68-71];
a condition data-related memory area for accommodating a plurality of authentication means-side condition data sets [par. 26 load authorizations sent by the user are checked by the central computer; par. 82 loading authorization] provided with a respective item of version information, wherein at least one of the authentication means-side condition data sets is assigned an item of version information [par. 30, note that the measured value relates to the load authorizations; pars. 45-46 a version number of two types of identifiers is disclosed];
a control unit configured, in cooperation with a charging point-side control unit [Fig. 1, charge control circuit 16, par. 69], to carry out a reconciliation of at least one of the plurality of authentication means-side condition data sets [par. 26 load authorizations; par. 82 loading authorization] with at least one of a plurality of charging point-side condition data sets retained in a memory area of the charging point, wherein the reconciliation effectuates a replacement of a first condition data set by a second condition data set in consideration of a comparison of the respective item of version information [par. 30, the measured value relating to the load authorizations are data sets; pars. 45-46 a version number of two types of identifiers, which encompasses the load authorizations, is transmitted and updated after authentication checks are carried out; pars. 82-83. See also pars. 33, 34, 47, 51, 55], and a charging point to supply power to an accumulator only if authorized by the control unit [pars. 0032-0034, 0101, 0102].
Regarding claim 9, JUERGEN discloses the authentication means as claimed in claim 8, wherein the authentication means is a digital terminal [mobile communication device 22 + the central computer].
Response to Arguments
Applicant's remarks filed 10/20/2022 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant comments, “The current rejection of Independent Claim 1 as previously presented argues Juergen teaches the previously cited limitations (Office Action, Page 6). While Juergen does seem to provide some methods for authentication, it fails to teach the specific combination recited in Claim 1. For example, Independent Claim 1 provides version-controlled reconciliation logic that ensures condition data sets are updated bidirectionally between the authentication means and the charging point rather than a simple overwrite or static check, namely: reconciling a plurality of condition data sets retained in a memory area of the authentication means with a plurality of condition data sets retained in a memory area of the charging point, wherein an item of version information is assigned to at least one of the condition data sets and wherein a first condition data set is replaced by a second condition data set by the reconciliation in consideration of a comparison of the respective version information. Further, this provides offline operability, allowing roaming and contract negotiation without requiring a central instance of continuous network connections. The system of Jeurgen, on the other hand, must have a central computer to provide the validation. Juergen further fails to describe the structured condition data sets recited in Claim 1. For at least these reasons, Independent Claim 1 is not anticipated by Juergen.”
Examiner respectfully notes that applicant has not addressed any of the citations offered in the rejection. 37 CFR 1.111 (c) requires applicant to “clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. He or she must also show how the amendments avoid such references or objections.” In this case, applicant has failed to clearly point out patentable novelty and failed to show how the amendment avoids the combination of references applied against the claim.
In response to Applicant’s comment that Jeurgen does not include certain features of Applicant’s invention, the limitations on which the Applicant relies (i.e., “Further, this provides offline operability, allowing roaming and contract negotiation without requiring a central instance of continuous network connections. The system of Jeurgen, on the other hand, must have a central computer to provide the validation”) are not stated in the claims. As applicant is aware, it is the claims that define the claimed invention, and it is claims, not specifications that are anticipated or unpatentable. Constant v. Advanced Micro-Devices Inc., 7 USPQ2d 1064.
Therefore, the rejection is maintained.
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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20150071444 discloses a wireless charging apparatus and method utilizing a secure element. A receiver containing a secure element securely communicates with a charging pad also equipped with a secure element. The communication can be used to establish the identity of the receiver and facilitate billing for the wireless charging. The charging pad may further communicate in a secure manner with a server to authenticate the identity and other information about the receiver before providing wireless charging. Direct communication between the receiver and server is also contemplated.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICHARD V MURALIDAR whose telephone number is (571)272-8933. The examiner can normally be reached M - W 9:30 am to 6:30 PM.
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, Drew Dunn can be contacted at 571-272-2312. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. 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.
RICHARD V. MURALIDAR
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2859
/RICHARD V MURALIDAR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2859