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
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 9 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. Newly found reference POWELL is relied upon to teach the amended recitations “the maximum error count or the maximum error frequency is based on a length of time during which the user is a customer”, and “the maximum error count or the maximum error frequency increases as the length of time during which the user is the customer increases” as described in the rejection below.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 11/26/2025. These drawings are acceptable.
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 1-7 and 9 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 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.
Regarding claim 1, the amended recitation “the maximum error count or the maximum error frequency increases as the length of time during which the user is the customer increases” is not disclosed in the specification. The specification as originally filed discloses “The maximum error count or the maximum error frequency can be set manually or adapted automatically. For example, higher maximum error counts or maximum error frequencies may be set for long-time customers, business customers, or the like, until the customers or the motor vehicles are blocked” (page 6, lines 18-21). However, the specification does not disclose the maximum error count or maximum error frequency increases as recited. Therefore, the amended recitation constitutes new matter.
Claims 2-7 are dependent from claim 1 and are therefore rejected for the same reasons as independent claim 1.
Claim 9 includes recitations similar to claim 1 and is therefore rejected for the same reasons as independent claim 1.
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.
Claims 1-7 and 9 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.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 1 recites the broad recitation “the maximum error count or the maximum error frequency is based on a length of time during which the user is a customer”, and the claim also recites “the maximum error count or the maximum error frequency increases as the length of time during which the user is the customer increases” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Regarding claim 1, the amended recitation “if the error count is above a maximum error count or a maximum error frequency determine subsequent charging processes are blocked for the motor vehicle and/or the user” is indefinite as it is not clear if the “subsequent charging processes are blocked” as a result of the error count being above the maximum or if they are blocked prior to the determination. For examination purposes, the recitation is interpreted as blocking “subsequent charging processes” as a result of the determination. It is suggested the claim be amended to recite, e.g., “if the error count is above a maximum error count or a maximum error frequency, blocking subsequent charging processes for the motor vehicle and/or the user”.
Claims 2-7 are dependent from claim 1 and are therefore rejected for the same reasons as independent claim 1.
Claim 9 includes recitations similar to claim 1 and is therefore rejected for the same reasons as independent claim 1.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6-7, and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EVANDER (US Pub. No. 2011/0254505; cited in previous office action) in view of POWELL (US Pub. No. 2015/0127547).
Regarding claim 1, EVANDER discloses a method for validation of a first charging data set (¶ 0046: the database system comprises a monitoring unit adapted to monitor if the charging system is tampered with, for example monitor if the same charging energy receiver identity is charging at more than one location at the same time or is charging several times within unreasonable short intervals; ¶ 0049: At the first contact between a charging station 2 and a vehicle unit 12, a charging energy receiver identity 11 is sent from the vehicle unit 12 to the charging station 2; ¶ 0058: identifying and verifying a charging energy receiver identity 11 belonging to the vehicle unit 12), regarding a first charging process of a motor vehicle (12, Fig. 1) at a first charging station (2, Fig. 1) and detected by the first charging station (¶ 0049: At the first contact between a charging station 2 and a vehicle unit 12, a charging energy receiver identity 11 is sent from the vehicle unit 12 to the charging station 2), the method comprising:
detecting a second charging data set, by a second charging station (¶ 0079: e.g., at a second location), regarding a second charging process during which the motor vehicle is charged and/or the second charging process is initiated and/or terminated by a user (¶ 0079: the identification system comprises a monitoring unit adapted to monitor if the charging is tampered with, for example monitor if the same charging energy receiver identity 11 is charging at more than one location at the same time or is charging several times within unreasonable short intervals. This monitoring can be made when the charging is in progress or after the charging process is finished),
testing fulfillment of an error condition, wherein the fulfillment of the error condition indicates invalidity of the first charging data set and/or the second charging data set and is dependent on both the first charging data set and the second charging data set (¶ 0079: the identification system comprises a monitoring unit adapted to monitor if the charging is tampered with, for example monitor if the same charging energy receiver identity 11 is charging at more than one location at the same time or is charging several times within unreasonable short intervals),
wherein the error condition is evaluated for multiple first charging data sets, and upon each fulfillment of the error condition an error count is increased (¶ 0079: the database 8 is according to one embodiment subject for automatic database checks.…the identification system comprises a monitoring unit adapted to monitor if the charging is tampered with, for example monitor if the same charging energy receiver identity 11 is charging at more than one location at the same time or is charging several times within unreasonable short intervals. This monitoring can be made when the charging is in progress or after the charging process is finished….By making the database indicate suspicious behaviour with a flag, the database may be adapted to alarm the user and/or system owner when a certain number of flags have been raised... A suspicious behaviour may be an unusual increase of the number of charging occasions…, and within which time period and at which geographical location the charging is made. The monitoring unit is thus preferably adapted to keep track on the number of chargings each charging energy receiver identity 11 is associated with; multiple first charging data sets are implied),
wherein if the error count is above a maximum error count or a maximum error frequency (¶ 0079: the database may be adapted to alarm the user and/or system owner when a certain number of flags have been raised) determine subsequent charging processes are blocked for the motor vehicle and/or the user (¶ 0046: the database system comprises a monitoring unit adapted to monitor if the charging system is tampered with, for example monitor if the same charging energy receiver identity is charging at more than one location at the same time or is charging several times within unreasonable short intervals. In such case, the charging is stopped).
EVANDER fails to disclose the maximum error count or the maximum error frequency is based on a length of time during which the user is a customer, and wherein the maximum error count or the maximum error frequency increases as the length of time during which the user is the customer increases.
POWELL discloses the maximum error count or the maximum error frequency is based on a length of time during which the user is a customer, and wherein the maximum error count or the maximum error frequency increases as the length of time during which the user is the customer increases (¶ 0029: There are benefits for all stakeholders in the payment ecosystem that may help encourage adoption of tokens. First, issuers and cardholders may benefit from new and more secure ways to pay, improved approval levels; ¶ 0078: Based on the type of the ID&V performed, the token service provider 116 may also generate a token assurance level associated with the generated token during the issuance of the token. The token assurance level may represent a level of trust in an association between the payment token and the PAN represented by the payment token. For example, a high token assurance level represents a trusted association of the token to the PAN from an authorized account holder, that may support secure and reliable payment transactions initiated with payment.…Token assurance levels may change once assigned and may be recalculated based upon factors that may influence confidence levels such as reported fraud or fraud-related chargebacks, etc; ¶ 0089: Token service provider assurance with requestor data is a ID&V assurance method which involves the use of data elements provided by the token requestor 114 that could be predictive of fraud. For example, the token requestor 114 may provide, among other information, account age and history, bill to/ship to addresses and contact information, IP address, device ID and device information, geo-location, and transaction velocity. The token service provider 116 may have appropriate assessment techniques and tools in place to implement this ID&V method and may combine the resulting ID&V data with the token service provider risk and authentication data related to the PAN to determine the assigned token assurance level; ¶ 0091: input data requested/obtained from the account holder 102 may include, among others, geo-location, device information, IP address, consumer information (e.g., email address, mobile phone number, landline phone number, confirmed shipping address, consumer ID&V, and age of customer relationship), and account information (e.g., length of time in wallet and/or account activity, such as none, recent, or not recent). When a token is issued with the issuer verification of the account holder, the token assurance level may indicate (e.g. the token assurance level value may be set to) "Issuer Assured". In some embodiments, the issuer verification of the account holder may result in a high or the highest token assurance level being assigned to the issued token; assurance levels are based on account age and age of customer relationship, and higher assurance levels result in improved approval levels, implying an increase in a “maximum error count” for customers with older accounts). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify EVANDER, which discloses user accounts for accessing vehicle charging services, to include the error thresholds for user accounts based on a length of time during which the user is a customer as disclosed in POWELL.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to incorporate the maximum error count or the maximum error frequency is based on a length of time during which the user is a customer as disclosed in POWELL into the method for validation of a first charging data set of EVANDER to produce an expected result of a method for validation of a first charging data set including a maximum error count or a maximum error frequency based on a length of time a user is a customer. The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to provide increased user convenience.
Regarding claim 2, EVANDER discloses the first charging data describes a first charging time interval in which the first charging process occurs, wherein the second charging data set describes a second charging time interval in which the second charging process occurs, wherein the error condition is fulfilled if the first charging time interval of the first charging data set overlaps with the second charging time interval of the second charging data set (¶ 0046, 0066, 0079).
Regarding claim 3, EVANDER discloses the first charging data set describes a first charging time interval, wherein the second charging data set describes a second charging time interval in which the second charging process occurs, wherein the error condition is fulfilled if a time distance between a beginning or end of the first charging time interval of the first charging data set and a beginning or end of the second charging time interval of the second charging data set falls below a time limit value (¶ 0046, 0066, 0079).
Regarding claim 6, EVANDER discloses the first charging data set contains identification information regarding the motor vehicle and/or the user initiating and/or terminating the first charging process, wherein charging data sets are determined for multiple different motor vehicles and/or for multiple different users regarding a charging of a respective motor vehicle at a respective charging station, wherein each of the charging data sets contains identification information identifying the motor vehicle and/or the user initiating and/or terminating a respective charging process, wherein the charging data sets which contain same identification information as the first charging data set are used as the second charging data set (¶ 0036-0037, 0079, 0098).
Regarding claim 7, EVANDER discloses upon the fulfillment of the error condition or a triggering condition dependent on the fulfillment of the error condition, a message is output to a device external to the first charging station and the second charging station and/or to the user (¶ 0079).
Regarding claim 9, EVANDER discloses a system for validation of a first charging data set (¶ 0046: the database system comprises a monitoring unit adapted to monitor if the charging system is tampered with, for example monitor if the same charging energy receiver identity is charging at more than one location at the same time or is charging several times within unreasonable short intervals; ¶ 0049: At the first contact between a charging station 2 and a vehicle unit 12, a charging energy receiver identity 11 is sent from the vehicle unit 12 to the charging station 2; ¶ 0058: identifying and verifying a charging energy receiver identity 11 belonging to the vehicle unit 12) regarding a first charging process of a motor vehicle (12, Fig. 1) at a first charging station (2, Fig. 1) and detected by the first charging station, (¶ 0049: At the first contact between a charging station 2 and a vehicle unit 12, a charging energy receiver identity 11 is sent from the vehicle unit 12 to the charging station 2) comprising:
the first charging station (2, Fig. 1);
a second charging station for charging of motor vehicles (¶ 0079: e.g., at a second location); and
a processing device which, in operation:
detects a second charging data set, by the second charging station, regarding a second charging process during which the motor vehicle is charged and/or the second charging process is initiated and/or terminated by a user (¶ 0079: the identification system comprises a monitoring unit adapted to monitor if the charging is tampered with, for example monitor if the same charging energy receiver identity 11 is charging at more than one location at the same time or is charging several times within unreasonable short intervals. This monitoring can be made when the charging is in progress or after the charging process is finished), and
tests fulfillment of an error condition, wherein the fulfillment of the error condition indicates invalidity of the first charging data set and/or the second charging data set and is dependent on both the first charging data set and the second charging data set (¶ 0079: the identification system comprises a monitoring unit adapted to monitor if the charging is tampered with, for example monitor if the same charging energy receiver identity 11 is charging at more than one location at the same time or is charging several times within unreasonable short intervals),
wherein the error condition is evaluated for multiple first charging data sets, and upon each fulfillment of the error condition an error count is increased (¶ 0079: the database 8 is according to one embodiment subject for automatic database checks.…the identification system comprises a monitoring unit adapted to monitor if the charging is tampered with, for example monitor if the same charging energy receiver identity 11 is charging at more than one location at the same time or is charging several times within unreasonable short intervals. This monitoring can be made when the charging is in progress or after the charging process is finished….By making the database indicate suspicious behaviour with a flag, the database may be adapted to alarm the user and/or system owner when a certain number of flags have been raised... A suspicious behaviour may be an unusual increase of the number of charging occasions…, and within which time period and at which geographical location the charging is made. The monitoring unit is thus preferably adapted to keep track on the number of chargings each charging energy receiver identity 11 is associated with; multiple first charging data sets are implied),
wherein if the error count is above a maximum error count or a maximum error frequency (¶ 0079: the database may be adapted to alarm the user and/or system owner when a certain number of flags have been raised) determine subsequent charging processes are blocked for the motor vehicle and/or the user (¶ 0046: the database system comprises a monitoring unit adapted to monitor if the charging system is tampered with, for example monitor if the same charging energy receiver identity is charging at more than one location at the same time or is charging several times within unreasonable short intervals. In such case, the charging is stopped).
EVANDER fails to disclose the maximum error count or the maximum error frequency is based on a length of time during which the user is a customer, and wherein the maximum error count or the maximum error frequency increases as the length of time during which the user is the customer increases.
POWELL discloses the maximum error count or the maximum error frequency is based on a length of time during which the user is a customer, and wherein the maximum error count or the maximum error frequency increases as the length of time during which the user is the customer increases (¶ 0029: There are benefits for all stakeholders in the payment ecosystem that may help encourage adoption of tokens. First, issuers and cardholders may benefit from new and more secure ways to pay, improved approval levels; ¶ 0078: Based on the type of the ID&V performed, the token service provider 116 may also generate a token assurance level associated with the generated token during the issuance of the token. The token assurance level may represent a level of trust in an association between the payment token and the PAN represented by the payment token. For example, a high token assurance level represents a trusted association of the token to the PAN from an authorized account holder, that may support secure and reliable payment transactions initiated with payment…Token assurance levels may change once assigned and may be recalculated based upon factors that may influence confidence levels such as reported fraud or fraud-related chargebacks, etc; ¶ 0089: Token service provider assurance with requestor data is a ID&V assurance method which involves the use of data elements provided by the token requestor 114 that could be predictive of fraud. For example, the token requestor 114 may provide, among other information, account age and history, bill to/ship to addresses and contact information, IP address, device ID and device information, geo-location, and transaction velocity. The token service provider 116 may have appropriate assessment techniques and tools in place to implement this ID&V method and may combine the resulting ID&V data with the token service provider risk and authentication data related to the PAN to determine the assigned token assurance level; ¶ 0091: input data requested/obtained from the account holder 102 may include, among others, geo-location, device information, IP address, consumer information (e.g., email address, mobile phone number, landline phone number, confirmed shipping address, consumer ID&V, and age of customer relationship), and account information (e.g., length of time in wallet and/or account activity, such as none, recent, or not recent). When a token is issued with the issuer verification of the account holder, the token assurance level may indicate (e.g. the token assurance level value may be set to) "Issuer Assured". In some embodiments, the issuer verification of the account holder may result in a high or the highest token assurance level being assigned to the issued token; assurance levels are based on account age and age of customer relationship, and higher assurance levels result in improved approval levels, implying an increase in a “maximum error count” for customers with older accounts). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify EVANDER, which discloses user accounts for accessing vehicle charging services, to include the error thresholds for user accounts based on a length of time during which the user is a customer as disclosed in POWELL.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to incorporate the maximum error count or the maximum error frequency is based on a length of time during which the user is a customer as disclosed in POWELL into the system for validation of a first charging data set of EVANDER to produce an expected result of a system for validation of a first charging data set including a maximum error count or a maximum error frequency based on a length of time a user is a customer. The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to provide increased user convenience.
Claim(s) 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EVANDER in view of POWELL as applied to claims 1-3, 6-7, and 9 above, and further in view of UNAGAMI (US Pub. No. 2014/0059350; cited in previous office action).
Regarding claim 4, EVANDER as modified by POWELL teaches the method as applied to claim 3 but EVANDER fails to disclose a distance and/or an anticipated driving time between the first charging station and the second charging station which detect the first charging data and the second charging data set is determined, and the time limit value is determined in dependence on the distance and/or the anticipated driving time.
UNAGAMI discloses a distance and/or an anticipated driving time between the first charging station and the second charging station which detect the first charging data and the second charging data set is determined, and the time limit value is determined in dependence on the distance and/or the anticipated driving time (¶ 0157-0158).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to incorporate the time limit value is determined in dependence on the distance as disclosed in UNAGAMI into the method for validation of a first charging data set of EVANDER to produce an expected result of a method for validation of a first charging data set including a time limit value determined in dependence on distance. The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to provide additional criteria necessary for the validation of the charging data set, and therefore improve the validation of the charging data set.
Regarding claim 5, EVANDER as modified by POWELL teaches the method as applied to claim 3 but EVANDER fails to disclose a distance and/or a minimum driving time between the first charging station and the second charging station which detect the first charging data set and the second charging data set is determined, and the time limit value is determined in dependence on the distance and/or the minimum driving time.
UNAGAMI discloses a distance and/or a minimum driving time between the first charging station and the second charging station which detect the first charging data set and the second charging data set is determined, and the time limit value is determined in dependence on the distance and/or the minimum driving time (¶ 0157-0158).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to incorporate the time limit value is determined in dependence on the distance as disclosed in UNAGAMI into the method for validation of a first charging data set of EVANDER to produce an expected result of a method for validation of a first charging data set including a time limit value determined in dependence on distance. The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to provide additional criteria necessary for the validation of the charging data set, and therefore improve the validation of the charging data set.
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 MANUEL HERNANDEZ whose telephone number is (571)270-7916. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9a-5p ET.
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, Taelor Kim can be reached at (571) 270-7166. 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.
/Manuel Hernandez/Examiner, Art Unit 2859 3/12/2026
/TAELOR KIM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2859