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 .
Claim Status
Claims 1-5, 7-14, and 16-19 are pending. Claims 6, 15, and 20 are canceled. Claims 1-5, 7-14, and 16-19 are amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/3/2026 with respect to the rejection under 35 USC 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that claims 1, 10, and 19 “recited improvements to the functioning of a computer”, however, it is submitted that the recited steps/functionality represent conventional, routine activity rather than a specific, technological advancement in how a computer would operate. In response to arguments that the combination of elements is “linked to a particular technological environment”, it is submitted that the EV and EVSE are recited at a high level of generality, are considered “field of use” recitations (see MPEP 2106.05(h)), and as such are not significantly more than the abstract idea.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the amended recitations in independent claim(s) 1, 10, and 19 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. Applicant argues against the modification of primary reference IGARASHI with secondary reference BADGER, however BADGER is no longer relied upon in the rejection. It is noted that while the amendments to independent claims 1, 10, and 19 appear to include subject matter similar to canceled claims 6, 15, and 20, the amended recitations are different in scope. Upon further consideration of primary reference IGARASHI, it is submitted that IGARASHI discloses the amended recitations within the broadest reasonable interpretation. In particular, IGARASHI discloses at least in paragraphs 0230-0233 that the EVSE checks if changing the power transfer requirements is allowed before transmitting the change request to the EV. Applicant has not specifically commented on or argued against the relevant portions of IGARASHI relied upon in the rejection.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 2/3/2026. These drawings are acceptable.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Claims 1-5, 7-14, and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (abstract idea) without reciting additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Moreover, the claims do not appear to recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 1 recites a method of changing a target power transfer requirement including allowing a power transfer to be performed according to a changed target power transfer requirement. The recited steps are directed to data manipulation and/or calculations that may be performed through a mental process and is thus considered a Judicial Exception. The recited method does no more than automate the mental processes that a user can perform to determine and communicate control instructions. The steps of receiving and transmitting are considered additional elements (i.e., they can be considered receiving/transmitting data over a network). The step of “allowing a power transfer” is also considered an additional element (i.e., it is considered “mere instructions to apply an exception”, see MPEP 2106.05(f)). The EV and EVSE are also considered additional elements, but are recited at a high level of generality, and are considered “field of use” recitations (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Therefore, the additional elements are not considered a practical application of the abstract idea, and the claim as a whole does not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application.
Finally, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the receiving/transmitting steps appear to be insignificant extra-solution activity and well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions because they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality); the EV and EVSE are recited at a high level of generality, and are considered “field of use” recitations (see MPEP 2106.05(h)); and the “allowing a power transfer” step is interpreted as being “mere instructions to apply an exception”.
Claims 2-5 and 7-9 do not appear to make the claims eligible for reasons similar to those noted above and are therefore also rejected under 35 USC 101.
Claim 10 recites an electric vehicle supply equipment (EVSE) for transferring electrical power to an EV, including a memory and processor to perform steps which allow a power transfer to be performed according to a changed target power transfer requirement. The recited steps are directed to data manipulation and/or calculations that may be performed through a mental process and is thus considered a Judicial Exception. The recited circuitry does no more than automate the mental processes that a user can perform to determine and communicate control instructions. The memory and processor are considered additional elements (i.e., they are merely generic components (e.g., recited at a high level of generality)). The steps of receiving and transmitting are also considered additional elements (i.e., they can be considered receiving or transmitting data over a network). The EV and EVSE are also considered additional elements, but are recited at a high level of generality, are considered “field of use” recitations (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). The step of “allow a power transfer” is also considered an additional element (i.e., it is considered “mere instructions to apply an exception”, see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Therefore, the additional elements are not considered a practical application of the abstract idea, and the claim as a whole does not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application.
Finally, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the memory and processor are merely generic components and are recited at a high level of generality; the receiving/transmitting steps appear to be insignificant extra-solution activity and well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions because they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality); the EV and EVSE are recited at a high level of generality, and are considered “field of use” recitations (see MPEP 2106.05(h)); and the “allow a power transfer” step is interpreted as being “mere instructions to apply an exception”.
Claims 11-14 and 16-18 do not appear to make the claims eligible for reasons similar to those noted above and are therefore also rejected under 35 USC 101.
Claim 19 recites a method of changing a target power transfer requirement in an EV, including determining whether to accept a change request for changing a target power transfer requirement. The recited steps are directed to data manipulation and/or calculations that may be performed through a mental process and is thus considered a Judicial Exception. The recited method does no more than automate the mental processes that a user can perform to determine and communicate control instructions. The steps of receiving and transmitting are considered additional elements (i.e., they can be considered receiving or transmitting data over a network). The EV and EVSE are also considered additional elements, but are recited at a high level of generality, are considered “field of use” recitations (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Therefore, the additional elements are not considered a practical application of the abstract idea, and the claim as a whole does not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application.
Finally, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the receiving/transmitting steps appear to be insignificant extra-solution activity and well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions because they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality); and the EV and EVSE are recited at a high level of generality, and are considered “field of use” recitations (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-5, 8-14, and 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by IGARASHI (US PG Pub 2016/0039301; cited on IDS with date 12/4/2024; cited in previous office action).
Regarding claim 1, IGARASHI discloses a method of changing a target power transfer requirement, by an electric vehicle supply equipment (EVSE) in a charging station (3, Fig. 1), set by an electric vehicle (EV) (2, Fig. 1) through an interaction between the EV and the EVSE (¶ 0010: A charging schedule changing method according to the present invention is a method for changing a charging schedule of a storage means installed in a vehicle, and includes the steps of: receiving a request for a change of the charging schedule; acquiring, from a charging control apparatus, a charging parameter applied in a case where the charging schedule is changed in response to the request for the change of the charging schedule as received; and creating a charging schedule after the change using the charging parameter acquired from the charging control apparatus; ¶ 0119: the change request message requesting the change of the charging schedule similarly includes at least one of the departure time, destination information (the latitude and the longitude of the destination or a name and an address of a facility) indicating the destination, and the amount of charging power after the change), comprising:
transmitting, to the EV, a change request for changing the target power transfer requirement (¶ 0235: The communication device 31 generates the notification message including the charging parameter, and transmits the notification message to the information terminal 5 (step S209). The notification message can include, as a request for update of the charging schedule, information such as “Could you delay the departure time (estimated charging end time)?” and “Could you perform discharging of A watts from time B to time C?”; ¶ 0236: The communication device 31 also preferably transmits the notification message to the vehicle 2) based on (the phrase “based on” is considered to be open-ended, and does not require a relationship of direct reliance, but rather is interpreted as “having at least some relationship to”) a parameter indicating that changing the target power transfer requirement is allowed for the EVSE, wherein the parameter is included in a first message exchanged between the EV and the EVSE (¶ 0088: After receiving, from the charging facility 3, the response message including the information indicating that the charging facility 3 can respond to the charging schedule in step S13, the vehicle 2 notifies the information terminal 5 of the charging end time and the power rate necessary for charging; ¶ 0090: If the vehicle 2 receives the response message including information indicating that the charging facility 3 cannot respond to the charging schedule, the vehicle 2 returns to step S11 to generate the charging schedule again; ¶ 0099: If the value of the flag indicates that the charging facility 3 cannot respond to the charging schedule, the communication device 22 returns to step S102 to generate the charging schedule again; ¶ 0140: In a case where the information terminal 5 having received the response message judges that the charging schedule cannot be changed (e.g., a case where a desired charging schedule cannot be created from the charging parameter after the change and a case where approval cannot be obtained from the user), the information terminal 5 includes the information in the notification message, and transmits the resultant notification message to the charging facility 3; ¶ 0187: If the power feeding control device 30 judges that the charging schedule cannot be changed, the power feeding control device 30 notifies the information input and output device 32 and the information terminal 5 accordingly, and ends processing in the charging change sequence. With such configuration, the user can attempt to change the charging schedule again as necessary; ¶ 0230-0233);
receiving, from the EV, a second message indicating that the change request is accepted (¶ 0237: communication device 31 receives the notification message from the information terminal 5 or the vehicle 2 to acquire the charging schedule after the change (step S210)); and
allowing a power transfer to be performed according to a new target power transfer requirement (¶ 0048: power feeding control device 30 controls power supply to a side of the charging cable 4 (the battery 20 of the vehicle 2) in accordance with an instruction from the communication device 31; ¶ 0157: the vehicle 2 understands the change of the charging schedule, and can control charging of the battery 20 in accordance with the charging schedule after the change).
Regarding claim 2, IGARASHI discloses the target power transfer requirement is one selected from: a departure time, a target state of charge, or a minimum state of charge (¶ 0119, 0145).
Regarding claim 3, IGARASHI discloses re-negotiating a charging profile with the EV based on the change request or the second message (¶ 0201-0202, 0235-0236, 0249).
Regarding claim 4, IGARASHI discloses re-negotiating the charging profile with the EV comprises: transmitting a third message including an offer for a maximum charging power to the EV in response to the second message (¶ 0233-0236).
Regarding claim 5, IGARASHI discloses providing the target power transfer requirement to a user of the EV before receiving the request for changing the target power transfer requirement (¶ 0084-0086).
Regarding claim 8, IGARASHI discloses an access request and the change request of a user of the EV is received through an external device capable of connecting to the charging station through a predetermined network (¶ 0053, 0210, 0214).
Regarding claim 9, IGARASHI discloses the charging station directly receives an access request and the change request of a user of the EV through a user interface of the charging station (¶ 0052, 0119, 0210, 0227).
Regarding claim 10, IGARASHI discloses an electric vehicle supply equipment (EVSE) (3, Fig. 1) for transferring electrical power to or from an electric vehicle (EV) (2, Fig. 1; ¶ 0043: control device 21 follows an instruction (or notification) from the communication device 22, and controls operation to charge the battery 20 with power supplied from a side of the charging port 23 (power supplied from the charging facility 3 through the charging cable 4) in accordance with the instruction (or notification)), comprising:
a memory storing program instructions (¶ 0111: The power feeding control device 30 and the communication device 31 are described herein as separate devices. They, however, may be a program. The program may further include one or more programs. In the case of a plurality of programs, they are driven by the same computer or by separate computers); and
a processor coupled to the memory and executing the program instructions stored in the memory (¶ 0111: see above),
wherein the program instructions, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to:
transmit, to the EV, a change request for changing a target power transfer requirement (¶ 0235: The communication device 31 generates the notification message including the charging parameter, and transmits the notification message to the information terminal 5 (step S209). The notification message can include, as a request for update of the charging schedule, information such as “Could you delay the departure time (estimated charging end time)?” and “Could you perform discharging of A watts from time B to time C?”; ¶ 0236: The communication device 31 also preferably transmits the notification message to the vehicle 2) based on (the phrase “based on” is considered to be open-ended, and does not require a relationship of direct reliance, but rather is interpreted as “having at least some relationship to”) a parameter indicating that changing the target power transfer requirement is allowed for the EVSE, wherein the parameter is included in a first message exchanged between the EV and the EVSE (¶ 0088: After receiving, from the charging facility 3, the response message including the information indicating that the charging facility 3 can respond to the charging schedule in step S13, the vehicle 2 notifies the information terminal 5 of the charging end time and the power rate necessary for charging; ¶ 0090: If the vehicle 2 receives the response message including information indicating that the charging facility 3 cannot respond to the charging schedule, the vehicle 2 returns to step S11 to generate the charging schedule again; ¶ 0099: If the value of the flag indicates that the charging facility 3 cannot respond to the charging schedule, the communication device 22 returns to step S102 to generate the charging schedule again; ¶ 0140: In a case where the information terminal 5 having received the response message judges that the charging schedule cannot be changed (e.g., a case where a desired charging schedule cannot be created from the charging parameter after the change and a case where approval cannot be obtained from the user), the information terminal 5 includes the information in the notification message, and transmits the resultant notification message to the charging facility 3; ¶ 0187: If the power feeding control device 30 judges that the charging schedule cannot be changed, the power feeding control device 30 notifies the information input and output device 32 and the information terminal 5 accordingly, and ends processing in the charging change sequence. With such configuration, the user can attempt to change the charging schedule again as necessary; ¶ 0230-0233);
receive, from the EV, a second message indicating that the change request is accepted (¶ 0237: communication device 31 receives the notification message from the information terminal 5 or the vehicle 2 to acquire the charging schedule after the change (step S210)); and
allow a power transfer to be performed according to the changed target power transfer requirement (¶ 0048: power feeding control device 30 controls power supply to a side of the charging cable 4 (the battery 20 of the vehicle 2) in accordance with an instruction from the communication device 31; ¶ 0157: the vehicle 2 understands the change of the charging schedule, and can control charging of the battery 20 in accordance with the charging schedule after the change).
Regarding claim 11, IGARASHI discloses the target power transfer requirement is one selected from: a departure time, a target state of charge, or a minimum state of charge (¶ 0119, 0145).
Regarding claim 12, IGARASHI discloses the processor is further configured to: re-negotiate a charging profile with the EV based on the change request or the second message (¶ 0201-0202, 0235-0236, 0249).
Regarding claim 13, IGARASHI discloses the processor is further to: transmit a third message including an offer for a maximum charging power to the EV in response to the second message (¶ 0233-0236).
Regarding claim 14, IGARASHI discloses the processor is further configured to: provide the target power transfer requirement to a user of the EV before receiving the request for changing the target power transfer requirement (¶ 0084-0086).
Regarding claim 17, IGARASHI discloses an access request and the change request of a user of the EV is received through an external device capable of connecting to the EVSE through a predetermined network (¶ 0053, 0210, 0214).
Regarding claim 18, IGARASHI discloses a user interface configured to directly receive an access request and the change request of a user of the EV (¶ 0052, 0119, 0210, 0227).
Regarding claim 19, IGARASHI discloses a method of changing a target power transfer requirement (¶ 0010: A charging schedule changing method according to the present invention is a method for changing a charging schedule of a storage means installed in a vehicle, and includes the steps of: receiving a request for a change of the charging schedule; acquiring, from a charging control apparatus, a charging parameter applied in a case where the charging schedule is changed in response to the request for the change of the charging schedule as received; and creating a charging schedule after the change using the charging parameter acquired from the charging control apparatus; ¶ 0119: the change request message requesting the change of the charging schedule similarly includes at least one of the departure time, destination information (the latitude and the longitude of the destination or a name and an address of a facility) indicating the destination, and the amount of charging power after the change) in an electric vehicle (EV) (2, Fig. 1), comprising:
transmitting, to an electric vehicle supply equipment (EVSE) in a charging station (3, Fig. 1), a target power transfer requirement (¶ 0039: information terminal 5 is used to input and output information necessary to create a charging schedule to and from the vehicle 2. Although the information terminal 5 is described herein as an apparatus different from the vehicle 2, the information terminal 5 may be incorporated in the vehicle 2 as a part of the vehicle 2; ¶ 0084: (2) The vehicle 2 transmits a notification message including information on whether the vehicle 2 can be charged or not and information on its own charging schedule generated based on the charging schedule (step S12));
receiving, from the EVSE, a change request for changing the target power transfer requirement (¶ 0235: The communication device 31 generates the notification message including the charging parameter, and transmits the notification message to the information terminal 5 (step S209). The notification message can include, as a request for update of the charging schedule, information such as “Could you delay the departure time (estimated charging end time)?” and “Could you perform discharging of A watts from time B to time C?”; ¶ 0236: The communication device 31 also preferably transmits the notification message to the vehicle 2);
determining whether or not to accept the change request based on (the phrase “based on” is considered to be open-ended, and does not require a relationship of direct reliance, but rather is interpreted as “having at least some relationship to”) a parameter indicating that changing the target power transfer requirement is allowed for the EVSE, wherein the parameter is included in a first message exchanged between the EV and the EVSE (¶ 0088: After receiving, from the charging facility 3, the response message including the information indicating that the charging facility 3 can respond to the charging schedule in step S13, the vehicle 2 notifies the information terminal 5 of the charging end time and the power rate necessary for charging; ¶ 0090: If the vehicle 2 receives the response message including information indicating that the charging facility 3 cannot respond to the charging schedule, the vehicle 2 returns to step S11 to generate the charging schedule again; ¶ 0099: If the value of the flag indicates that the charging facility 3 cannot respond to the charging schedule, the communication device 22 returns to step S102 to generate the charging schedule again; ¶ 0140: In a case where the information terminal 5 having received the response message judges that the charging schedule cannot be changed (e.g., a case where a desired charging schedule cannot be created from the charging parameter after the change and a case where approval cannot be obtained from the user), the information terminal 5 includes the information in the notification message, and transmits the resultant notification message to the charging facility 3; ¶ 0187: If the power feeding control device 30 judges that the charging schedule cannot be changed, the power feeding control device 30 notifies the information input and output device 32 and the information terminal 5 accordingly, and ends processing in the charging change sequence. With such configuration, the user can attempt to change the charging schedule again as necessary; ¶ 0230-0233); and
transmitting, to the EVSE, a second message indicating whether or not the change request is accepted (¶ 0237: communication device 31 receives the notification message from the information terminal 5 or the vehicle 2 to acquire the charging schedule after the change (step S210)).
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.
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.
Claim(s) 7 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over IGARASHI as applied to claims 1-5, 8-14, and 17-19 above, and further in view of DALAL (US PG Pub 2003/0092442; cited in previous office action).
Regarding claim 7, IGARASHI discloses the method as applied to claim 1, and further discloses notifying a user of the EV of a completion of the change (¶ 0086-0088, 0130).
IGARASHI fails to disclose the change request comprises: a predetermined acknowledgement time limit specified so that the EV transmits a change acknowledgement as the second message within the acknowledgement time limit, the method further comprising: notifying the user of the EV of the completion of the change after receiving the change acknowledgement as the second message from the EV.
DALAL discloses a predetermined acknowledgement time limit specified so that [an acknowledgement is transmitted] within the acknowledgement time limit (¶ 0014). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the predetermined acknowledgement time limit of DALAL in the change request of IGARASHI. Also, including a predetermined acknowledgement time limit as disclosed in DALAL in the method of IGARASHI would provide the notification the user of the EV of the completion of the change after receiving the change acknowledgement as the second message from the EV.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the predetermined acknowledgement time limit as recited in order to ensure system stability, reliability, and responsiveness.
Regarding claim 16, IGARASHI discloses the EVSE as applied to claim 10, and further discloses the processor is further configured to notify a user of the EV of a completion of the change (¶ 0086-0088, 0130).
IGARASHI fails to disclose the processor is further configured to: specify a predetermined acknowledgement time limit in the change request so that the EV transmits a change acknowledgement as the second message within the acknowledgement time limit, and notify the user of the EV of the completion of the change after receiving the change acknowledgement from the EV.
DALAL discloses the processor is further configured to specify a predetermined acknowledgement time limit so that [an acknowledgement is transmitted] within the acknowledgement time limit (¶ 0014). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the predetermined acknowledgement time limit of DALAL in the change request of IGARASHI. Also, including a predetermined acknowledgement time limit as disclosed in DALAL in the EVSE of IGARASHI would provide the notification the user of the EV of the completion of the change after receiving the change acknowledgement from the EV.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the predetermined acknowledgement time limit as recited in order to ensure system stability, reliability, and responsiveness.
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, Drew Dunn can be reached at (571) 272-2312. 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 5/31/2026
/DREW A DUNN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2859
Prosecution Insights