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 .
The following guidelines illustrate the preferred layout for the specification of a utility application. These guidelines are suggested for the applicant’s use.
Arrangement of the Specification
As provided in 37 CFR 1.77(b), the specification of a utility application should include the following sections in order. Each of the lettered items should appear in upper case, without underlining or bold type, as a section heading. If no text follows the section heading, the phrase “Not Applicable” should follow the section heading:
(a) TITLE OF THE INVENTION.
(b) CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS.
(c) STATEMENT REGARDING FEDERALLY SPONSORED RESEARCH OR DEVELOPMENT.
(d) THE NAMES OF THE PARTIES TO A JOINT RESEARCH AGREEMENT.
(e) INCORPORATION-BY-REFERENCE OF MATERIAL SUBMITTED ON A READ-ONLY OPTICAL DISC, AS A TEXT FILE OR AN XML FILE VIA THE PATENT ELECTRONIC SYSTEM.
(f) STATEMENT REGARDING PRIOR DISCLOSURES BY THE INVENTOR OR A JOINT INVENTOR.
(g) BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION.
(1) Field of the Invention.
(2) Description of Related Art including information disclosed under 37 CFR 1.97 and 1.98.
(h) BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION.
(i) BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE SEVERAL VIEWS OF THE DRAWING(S).
(j) DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION.
(k) CLAIM OR CLAIMS (commencing on a separate sheet).
(l) ABSTRACT OF THE DISCLOSURE (commencing on a separate sheet).
(m) SEQUENCE LISTING. (See MPEP § 2422.03 and 37 CFR 1.821 - 1.825). A “Sequence Listing” is required on paper if the application discloses a nucleotide or amino acid sequence as defined in 37 CFR 1.821(a) and if the required “Sequence Listing” is not submitted as an electronic document either on read-only optical disc or as a text file via the patent electronic system.
It appears the inventor(s) filed the current application pro se (i.e., without the benefit of representation by a registered patent practitioner). While inventors named as applicants in a patent application may prosecute the application pro se, lack of familiarity with patent examination practice and procedure may result in missed opportunities in obtaining optimal protection for the invention disclosed. The inventor(s) may wish to secure the services of a registered patent practitioner to prosecute the application, because the value of a patent is largely dependent upon skilled preparation and prosecution. The Office cannot aid in selecting a patent practitioner.
A listing of registered patent practitioners is available at https://oedci.uspto.gov/OEDCI/. Applicants may also obtain a list of registered patent practitioners located in their area by writing to Mail Stop OED, Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313-1450.
Information Disclosure Statement
The listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
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.
1. Claims 8 – 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claims do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claims are directed to an Abstract Idea.
Step 2A, Prong One:
The claims are directed to the Abstract Idea of managing and sharing electric vehicle power, including notifications, selection of participants, and monetary compensation. This falls under certain methods of organizing human activity (e.g. facilitating transactions, sharing resources, brokering availability, compensation), and mental processes (receiving a notification selecting a provider, determining percentages or ranges).
For Example:
Claim 8 recites, “allowing a portion of its charged power to be shared,” “notified through its onboard computer or app,” which describes resource allocation and communication, categorized as an Abstract Idea.
Claim 9 recites, “monetary compensation…currency…gift,” which is purely economic activity, squarely within ineligible subject matter.
Claim 10 recites, selecting EV owners from a list, thus matching buyers/sellers, categorized as an Abstract Idea.
Claim 11 recites, a cable with a release button, but lacks technical detail and merely state desired results (“easy release,” “clear even release”), failing to recited a particular technical improvement.
Step 2A, Prong Two:
The claims do not integrate the Abstract Idea into a Practical Application. The references to:
an Electric Vehicle (EV)
an onboard computer,
a mobile application (app)
a cable,
are generic components performing their well understood functions (notifications,
transmitting power, compensation), without any specific technical improvement to EV charging systems, communication protocols or connectors.
There is no recitation of a specific control algorithm, no circuitry described, no novel computer operations, and no structural limitations on the cable sufficient to amount to a meaningful, Practical Application.
Step 2B:
The claims lack an inventive concept. The additional elements, individually and in combination, amount to no more than generic EV components and generic computer implementation. Therefore, the claims do not amount to significantly more than the Abstract Idea itself.
Accordingly, Claims 8 – 11 are ineligible under 35 USC 101.
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.
1. Claims 8 - 11 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 claims contain 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The specification does not describe with sufficient detail how EV-to-EV power transfer is performed, how percentages of range or determined or delivered, how the mobile application (app) performs compensation of matching of electrical vehicles (EVs), or the structure and operation of the EV-to-EV cable. The lack of technical details would require under experimentation to implement the claimed systems.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
1. Claims 8 – 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Lack of Antecedent Basis
2. Claims 8-11 recite the following limitations, where it lacks antecedent basis:
"The onboard charger and/or power distribution system" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
“the Power Delivering EV” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
“the Power Receiving EV” in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
“the battery” in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
“the Power Receiving EV operator” in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
“the EV Power/Charge Sharing APP” in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
“the next charging destination” in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
“the Power Delivering EV operator” in line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
“the multiple conducting cathode and anode insert pins” in claim 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
“the charge port” in claim 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
A suggested claim amendment for the preamble of claim 8: “An onboard charge and/or power distribution system, comprising:…”
Indefinite Language
3. Claims 8 – 11 are replete with language which renders the claims indefinite:
“is said to,” “is said to comprise,” “where said,” and “is said to allow” is not proper claim language. It introduces ambiguity about whether the function is required, optional, or merely descriptive. This renders the claims indefinite because the metes and bounds cannot be determined.
Many elements are functional claim language, defined only by what their function, or what they do without recited structure:
“allowing apportion of its charged power to be shared,” (claim 8 line 2)
“may distribute an allowable percentage,” (claim 8 line 6)
“is said to allow monetary compensation,” (claim 9 line 12)
“to allow a list of participating owners,” (claim 10)
“hardware/software application that is ongoing in development” (claim 10)
“easy release button…to deliver a clear even release” (claim 11 line 5)
These merely state desired outcomes, pure results, not technical structures or steps, and fail to define structural boundaries.
Relative terms which are not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. These have no measurable parameters making the scope uncertain:
“allowable percentage” (claim 8 lines 6-7)
“another electric vehicles” (plural mismatch claim 8)
“appropriate radius” (claim 10 line 17)
“optimal performance” (claim 10)
“when required” (claim 10)
“optional for implement” (claim 11)
Regarding claims, the phrase, "for example" or “e.g.” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Unclear Claim Format
4. Claims 8 – 10 do not clearly fall within a statutory class (machine, manufacture, composition or process). The preamble structures, e.g. “The onboard charge and/or power distribution system of an electric vehicle is said to comprise of a power sharing system allowing a portion of its charged power to be shared with another electric vehicles;” is describe functions of systems or apps rather than defining structural elements or method steps.
As written, it is unclear whether the claims are intended to cover a machine, a method of operating a machine, a computer system or a software process.
Contradictory or Incoherent Phrasing
5. Claims 8-11 lack clear meaning and contain improper grammar, including:
“comprise of” (claims 8 and 11), incorrect English, “of” should be deleted. For example, a suggested correction of the claim 8 preamble, “An onboard charge and/or power distribution system, comprising:…”
“another electric vehicles” (claim 8), is a plural mismatch.
“may distribute an allowable percentage of distant range charges” (claim 8). The range is undefined.
“optional for implement” (claim 11), is unclear whether the limitation is required or not.
“is ongoing in development” (claim 10), claims cannot define future, unknown developments.
“placed center about” (claim 11), unclear where on the charger the release rod is located.
These unclear phrases contribute to indefiniteness.
Ambiguous Use of Miles and Percentages as Transferable Quantities
6. Claim 8 recites:
“Power delivering EV with a 300 mile/km range may distribute an allowable percentage…”
“when the Power Receiving EV requiring a 60 mile range…could receive 20%...therefore 60 miles of driving range”
Miles are not an energy unit and cannot be “distributed” between vehicles. This creates
indefiniteness because it is unclear whether the claim refers to energy (kwh), estimated driving range, battery state of charge percentage, or another parameter to transfer between vehicles. A person of ordinary skill in the art can not determine what quantity is transferred.
Grammatical errors
7. Claim 10, the word, “monetary” is misspelled.
Claim 11 ends with a comma. Each claim begins with a capital letter and ends with a period. See MPEP 608.01(m).
8. Claims 8-11 are rejected as failing to define the invention in the manner required by 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
The claim(s) are narrative in form and replete with indefinite language. The structure which goes to make up the device must be clearly and positively specified. The structure must be organized and correlated in such a manner as to present a complete operative device. The claim(s) must be in one sentence form only. Note the format of the claims in the patent(s) cited.
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.
Claims 8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kisacikoglu (US 20190165591) in view of Hyde (US 20140088804) .
Regarding claim 8, Kisacikoglu teaches the onboard charge and/or power distribution system of an electric vehicle is said to comprise of a power sharing system allowing a portion of its charged power to be shared with another electric vehicles (Figure 1 shows a system of Vehicle to Vehicle (V2V charging system item 100, allowing charging between electric vehicles item 102 and 104 figure 8 shows an Electric Vehicle onboard charge distribution system, interpreted as a Charge Sharing Network (CSN) item 800. Paragraph [0079] teaches wherein a first vehicle 802 provides charge to a second vehicle 804. Figure 8 shows wherein an onboard system, which includes a controller item 818 and 816, for vehicle 802 and a controller item 824 and 822 for vehicle 804 located onboard each vehicle).
Kisacikoglu teaches a) where said, the Power Delivering EV with a longer driving range is capable of accommodating charged power to the Power Receiving EV when the Power Receiving EV, with little to no driving range, requires charging to the battery to operate the vehicle (paragraph [0085] teaches wherein “distributing a percentage of driving distance,” is interpreted as transferring charge from one vehicle to another so that the driving distance and/or range of the vehicle may be extended. Paragraph [0030] teaches wherein a fast energy transfer may extend driving range).
b) where said, e.g., the Power Delivering EV with a 300 mile/km range may distribute an allowable percentage of distant range charges to the Power Receiving EV operator, when notified through its onboard computer and/or a notification from the EV Power/Charge Sharing APP and/or other devices (paragraph [0030] teaches wherein the system provides a fast transfer (e.g. up to 40 miles in 15 minutes). Paragraph [0035] teaches wherein a supplier vehicle transfers energy from a battery pack to a battery pack in a receiver vehicle. Thus, charge may be provided to provide an energy which will allow the vehicle an extended range. Figures 3A and 3B and paragraph [0080] show wherein notifications are provided to the user to facilitate charge and voltage sharing. Paragraph [0058] teaches wherein a vehicle with a higher battery pack voltage and a higher range, may provide charge to another vehicle. Paragraph [0064] teaches wherein an allowable percentage or minimum and maximum acceptable voltage values for transfer is established and communicated);
c) where said e.g., when the Power Receiving EV requiring a 60 mile range to reach the next charging destination could receive 20% from the Power Delivering EV operator, therefore 60 miles of driving range (paragraph [0030] teaches wherein the system provides a fast transfer (e.g. up to 40 miles in 15 minutes) thus, within 30 minutes of charge transfer, a 60 mile range has been provided. Paragraph [0058] teaches wherein a vehicle with a higher battery pack voltage and a higher range, may provide charge to another vehicle).
Kisacikoglu suggests transferring a value which corresponds to a distance, but does not explicitly teach distributing distant range.
Hyde teaches wherein a vehicle may distribute an allowable percentage of distant range charges to the Power Receiving EV operator (defined in paragraphs [0024]- [0025] wherein a quantity to transfer between vehicles determined. Paragraphs [0026]- [0027] teaches wherein the quantity to transfer may be specified by a travel itinerary and distance to traveled. Figure 2 shows a quantity available for transfer and quantity desired for transfer).
PNG
media_image1.png
567
753
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Kisacikoglu Figure 8 shows vehicle (802) to vehicle (804) charging
PNG
media_image2.png
477
677
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Hyde Figure 2 shows a display screen with a list of users to select a vehicle for charge sharing
Regarding claim 10, Kisacikoglu teaches the EV Power/Charge Sharing APP (shown in figure 800 as a charging sharing network 800 which is accessible via a mobile app on user device 808) a) where said, the onboard charge and/or power distribution system of an electric vehicle is a hardware/software application that is ongoing in development to deliver optimal performance when required (defined in paragraph [0093] wherein the design and development of the app is tested and developed. Paragraph [0074] teaches wherein the system may be updated for optimal performance. Mobile apps are well known in the art to be updated regularly).
Kisacikoglu does not explicitly teach wherein the app is said to allow a list of participating Power Delivering EV owners within an appropriate radius to allow for Power Receiving EV owners to select which Power Delivering EV operator/owner to select when notified through its onboard computer and/or an alert from the EV Power/Charge Sharing APP and/or other devices.
Hyde teaches wherein the app is said to allow a list of participating Power Delivering EV owners within an appropriate radius to allow for Power Receiving EV owners to select which Power Delivering EV operator/owner to select when notified through its onboard computer and/or an alert from the EV Power/Charge Sharing APP and/or other devices (shown in figure 2 item 200 shows a display screen including a list of participating users/owners/drivers to within an area available to exchange charge. Figure 4 and 5 show a map within a radius to allow the user to determine the location of the user. From the list and the map, the users may select which vehicle to exchange charge).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the charging system of the Kisacikoglu reference with the charging system of the Hyde reference so that the users may easily find and share charge with other authorized vehicles.
The suggestion/motivation for combination can be found in the Hyde reference in paragraph [0028] wherein the vehicles identified so as to facilitate charge sharing.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kisacikoglu (US 20190165591) in view of Nakagawa (US 20220363157).
Regarding claim 9, Kisacikoglu teaches in accordance to claim 1, but does not explicitly teach the EV Power/Charge Sharing APP is said to allow monetary compensation with any approved mean of exchanges implemented anywhere around the world; a) where said, the Power Delivering EV operator/owner may be compensated with currency of that country and/or as a gift to share from the Power Receiving EV operator/owner.
Nakagawa teaches wherein the EV Power/Charge Sharing APP is said to allow monetary compensation with any approved mean of exchanges implemented anywhere around the world; a) where said, the Power Delivering EV operator/owner may be compensated with currency of that country and/or as a gift to share from the Power Receiving EV operator/owner (defined in paragraph [0045] teaches wherein the vehicles network to facilitate ease in charge sharing. Paragraph [0048] teaches wherein incentives may be provided to the user for charge sharing between vehicles).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the charging system of the Kisacikoglu reference with the charging system of the Nakagawa reference so that the users may easily share charge with other authorized vehicles.
The suggestion/motivation for combination can be found in the Nakagawa reference in paragraph [0045] wherein the vehicles are registered within the same network.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stanfield (US 20220371443) in view Hasegawa (US 5545049).
Regarding claim 11, Stanfield teaches An Electric Vehicle to Electric Vehicle (EV2EV) power sharing cable, optional for implement (defined in paragraph [0014] an Electric vehicle with multiple discharge ports, interpreted as output ports, separate from charging or input ports. Figure 4 shows a separate discharging port, interpreted as a Power Port OUT. Paragraph [0059] teaches wherein a discharge plug, interpreted as a connector is used to connect with the discharging port, Power Port OUT).
Stanfield does not explicitly teach is said to comprise of an easy release button where the actuating release rod is placed center about the multiple conducting cathode and anode insert pins within the charge insert housing port; i.e. to deliver a clear even release when undoing the charge port.
Hasegawa teaches a plug containing a feature for quick release after charge (defined in column 4 lines 54 – 59 wherein the electromagnet coil 6 is deenergized upon completion of charging the battery of the electric car, so that the plug may be quickly released, interpreted as quickly retracted and unlocking a lever).
Hasegawa teaches wherein a plug delivers a clear even release when undoing the charge port (figure 1 shows a release handle, interpreted as an operating lever item 3. Figure 3 shows a plug, interpreted as power supply connector item A, with release rods, items 3a1, 3b, 5, 5a1 (interpreted as levers), 15, 28 33, 36, 37, 37’,53 (interpreted as pins) situated inside the plug. Locking arms items 36 and 36’ are also included on the plug to lock and release the plug).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the charging system of the Stanfield reference with the quick release system of the Hasegawa system so that attachment and removal of the plug module can be easily performed in a convenient way.
The suggestion/motivation for combination can be found in the Hasegawa reference in column 6 lines 49-59 wherein the plug may be easily attached and removed.
PNG
media_image3.png
410
628
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Stanfield figure 4 shows a separate discharge port, interpreted as Power Port OUT item 16 located on a vehicle.
PNG
media_image4.png
585
740
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Hasegawa figure 3 shows rods, items 3b, 5, and 15 situated within the plug, item A allowing the plug to released.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 8 - 11 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
The applicant argues that “the invention idea of sharing a portion of battery charged power from one electric vehicle to another electric vehicle and with monetary compensation is innovative.” The examiner respectfully disagrees. As shown above, the combination of the Kisacikoglu and Hyde system teaches a vehicle-to-vehicle charge sharing system wherein a portion of vehicle battery charge is transferred to the vehicle battery of another vehicle to extend a driving range. Hyde specifically teaches wherein the battery charge may be quantified as a distance for the vehicle to travel and transferred in specific desired quantities. The Nakagawa reference discloses a well known system of monetary compensation provided for the user to encourage vehicle-to-vehicle charge sharing.
While mobile applications (“apps”) be patentable when they include specific technological improvement such as a new data-processing technique, a new form of device interaction, or a clearly defined technical solution. The claims dated 10/17/2025 do not describe a technological advancement in this manner. Instead the claims focus mainly on:
managing interactions between vehicle owners
sending notifications or alerts
selecting participants from a list, and
facilitating monetary compensation.
These features fall into categories considered Abstract Idea, such as organizing human activity, making selections and managing financial transactions. Under US Patent Law, Abstract Ideas cannot be patented unless the claims include a specific, concrete technological improvement that transforms the idea into a practical invention.
This action is a final rejection and closes the prosecution of this application. Applicant’s reply under 37 CFR 1.113 to this action is limited to an appeal to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, an amendment complying with the requirements set forth below, or a request for continued examination (RCE) to reopen prosecution where permitted. Please note that the Office also offers initiatives that are available to applicants after the close of prosecution. See https://www.uspto.gov/patents/initiatives/uspto-patent-applications-iniatives-timeline for more information.
General information on the Patent Trial and Appeal Board is available at: www.uspto.gov/patents/ptab. The information at this page includes guidance on time limited options that may assist the applicant contemplating appealing an examiner’s rejection. It also includes information on pro bono (free) legal services and advice available for those who are under-resourced and considering an appeal at: https://www.uspto.gov/patents/ptab/free-legal-assistance. The page is best reviewed promptly after applicant has received a final rejection or the claims have been twice rejected because some of the noted assistance must be requested within one month from the date of the latest rejection. See MPEP § 1204 for more information on filing a notice of appeal.
If applicant should desire to appeal any rejection made by the examiner, a Notice of Appeal must be filed within the period for reply. The Notice of Appeal must be accompanied by the fee required by 37 CFR 41.20(b)(1). The current fee amount is available at: www.uspto.gov/Fees.
If applicant should desire to file an after-final amendment, entry of the proposed amendment cannot be made as a matter of right unless it merely cancels claims or complies with a formal requirement made in a previous Office action. Amendments touching the merits of the application which otherwise might not be proper may be admitted upon a showing of good and sufficient reasons why they are necessary and why they were not presented earlier.
A reply under 37 CFR 1.113 to a final rejection must include cancellation of or appeal from the rejection of, each rejected claim. The filing of an amendment after final rejection, whether or not it is entered, does not stop the running of the statutory period for reply to the final rejection unless the examiner holds all of the claims to be in condition for allowance.
If applicant should desire to continue prosecution in a utility or plant application filed on or after May 29, 2000 and have the finality of this Office action withdrawn, an RCE under 37 CFR 1.114 may be filed within the period for reply. See MPEP § 706.07(h) for more information on the requirements for filing an RCE.
The application will become abandoned unless a Notice of Appeal, an after final reply that places the application in condition for allowance, or an RCE has been filed properly within the period for reply, or any extension of this period obtained under either 37 CFR 1.136(a) or (b).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20190275894 A1 Distributed Energy Exchange Amacker; Matthew Et Al.
US 20200376970 A1 Charging Module Berggren; Alexander Et Al.
US 20200262305 A1 Charging Mobile Battery-Operated Units On-The-Go Chakraborty; Prabuddha Et Al.
US 20120049792 A1 For Charging An Auxilary Battery Crombez; Dale Scott
US 20210049712 A1 Charging System Devaraj; Sujitha Krishna Et Al.
US 20230012166 A1 V2V Charging System And Method Disley; Jonathan Et Al.
US 20180086212 A1 Vehicle-To-Vehicle Charging System Dudar; Aed M. Et Al.
US 20170015208 A1 Electric Vehicle Charging Via Grid Dunlap; Brock Et Al.
US 5413493 A Electrical Connector Assembly Hoffman; Ernest G.
US 9407105 B2 Transferring Electrical Energy Between Vehicles Hyde; Roderick A.
US 9566868 B2 Recharging Electric Vehicles In Transit Jammer; Daniel
US 20230271526 A1 Roadway Charging System Levy; Harry
US 20210323420 A1 Vehicle To Vehicle Wireless Energy Transfer Lu; Norman
US 11682929 B2 Car To Car Wireless Power Transfer Manes; Enrico
US 20230137396 A1 Cord Set For V2V, V2L, Or G2V Charging Mu; Mingkai Et Al.
US 20220363157 A1 V2v Charge Mapping Nakagawa; Masashi
US 5627448 A Charging Connector Assembly Okada; Hajime Et Al.
US 20230369869 A1 Mobile Charging Station Pipenberg; Damon Et Al.
US 11383607 B1 Bi-Directional Electrical Charging Prasad; Rashmi Et Al.
US 8963481 B2 Charging Service Vehicles Prosser; Ronald D. Et Al.
US 20170136881 A1 Vehicle To Vehicle Charging System Ricci; Christopher P.
US 20220305928 A1 Ev Charging Station Treadway; Peter
US 20190308520 A1 Vehicle Charging Ward; David Et Al.
US 20200341472 A1 Dynamic Vehicle Charging Zenner; Thomas Et Al.
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 ALEXIS B PACHECO whose telephone number is (571)272-5979. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 - 5:30.
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.
ALEXIS BOATENG PACHECO
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2859
/ALEXIS B PACHECO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2859