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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on April 5, 2023. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Status of the Claims
This Office Action is in response to the claims filed on April 5, 2023.
Claims 1-20 have been presented for examination.
Claims 1-20 are currently rejected.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 1, 3-4, 8, 10, 15, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeon et al. (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2017/0164179).
Claims 2, 9, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeon et al. (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2017/0164179) in view of Jang (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2019/0039465).
Claims 5-7 and 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeon et al. (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2017/0164179) in view of Ahmed et al. (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2018/0105053).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1
Claim 1. An early renegotiation method performed by an electric vehicle in a message sequence between the electric vehicle and a grid, the early renegotiation method comprising:
receiving a service detail response message from a supply equipment communication controller (SECC);
searching for a compatible parameter for direct current charging or alternating current charging based on the service detail response message;
changing a state from a service detail state to a vehicle positioning setup state for vehicle positioning using an automatic connection device or wireless power transfer if the compatible parameter is not found; and
transmitting a vehicle positioning setup request message to the SECC in the vehicle positioning setup state.
101 Analysis - Step 1: Statutory category – Yes
The claim recites a method including at least one step. The claim falls within one of the four statutory categories. See MPEP 2106.03.
101 Analysis - Step 2A Prong one evaluation: Judicial Exception – Yes – Mental processes
In Step 2A, Prong one of the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance (PEG), a claim is to be analyzed to determine whether it recites subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) mental processes, and/or c) certain methods of organizing human activity.
The Office submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitutes judicial exceptions in terms of “mental processes” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitations can be “performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper”. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)
The claim recites the limitation of searching for a compatible parameter for direct current charging or alternating current charging based on the service detail response message; changing a state from a service detail state to a vehicle positioning setup state for vehicle positioning using an automatic connection device or wireless power transfer if the compatible parameter is not found.
This limitation, as drafted, is a simple process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. That is, but for the “using an automatic connection device or wireless power transfer if the compatible parameter is not found” language, nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. Specifically, the claim encompasses a person looking at data collected and forming a simple judgement. For example, the claim describes an individual searching within a dataset for compatible parameters and manually changing a plan for a vehicle from a service detail status to vehicle positioning status. The mere nominal recitation of an “automatic connection device” does not take the claim limitations out of the mental process grouping.
Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
101 Analysis - Step 2A Prong two evaluation: Practical Application - No
In Step 2A, Prong two of the 2019 PEG, a claim is to be evaluated whether, as a whole, it integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application. As noted in MPEP 2106.04(d), it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements such as: merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
The Office submits that the foregoing underlined limitation(s) recite additional elements that do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application.
The claim recites additional elements or steps of receiving a service detail response message from a supply equipment communication controller (SECC); ... using an automatic connection device or wireless power transfer if the compatible parameter is not found; and transmitting a vehicle positioning setup request message to the SECC in the vehicle positioning setup state.
The receiving step is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering service detail information for the searching step), and amount to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The transmitting step is also recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of sending a message), and amounts to mere post solution data output, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The “automatic connection device” merely describes how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgements using a generic or general-purpose processing environment, i.e. a computer.
Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis - Step 2B evaluation: Inventive concept - No
In Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, a claim is to be evaluated as to whether the claim, as a whole, amounts to significantly more than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05.
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. Here, the receiving steps and the displaying step were considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus they are re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The background recites that the sensors are all conventional sensors mounted on the vehicle, and the specification does not provide any indication that the vehicle controller is anything other than a conventional computer within a vehicle. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). Further, the Federal Circuit in Trading Techs. Int’l v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019), and Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2017), for example, indicated that the mere displaying of data is a well understood, routine, and conventional function. Accordingly, a conclusion that the collecting step is well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer.
Thus, the claim is ineligible.
Claims 8 and 15
Independent claims 8 and 15 recite limitations that are parallel in scope to those provided in claim 1. The recited additional elements in claim 15 including “a memory storing program instructions; and a processor that is connected to the memory and executes the program instructions stored in the memory, wherein when executed by the processor” are recited at a high level of generality and merely describe how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental judgements using a generic or general-purpose computing environment. Accordingly, claims 8 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 under the same rationale.
Dependent Claims
Dependent claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of the dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, dependent claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of the independent claims.
Therefore, claims 1-20 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
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.
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.
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.
Claims 1, 3-4, 8, 10, 15, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeon et al. (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2017/0164179).
Regarding claim 1, Jeon discloses an early renegotiation method performed by an electric vehicle in a message sequence between the electric vehicle and a grid (Jeon ¶ 41), the early renegotiation method comprising:
receiving a service detail response message from a supply equipment communication controller (SECC); (Jeon ¶ 10 discloses “a method for discovering a specific primary device (PD) of an electric vehicle supply equipment (EVSE), performed by a discovery apparatus of an electric vehicle (EV) including ... receiving a first transmit signal including a first network identifier from at least one of a supply equipment communication controller (SECC) of a charging station into which the EV enters,” including “receiving a first response to the first connection request signal from the SECC,” see ¶ 11)
searching for a compatible parameter for direct current charging or alternating current charging based on the service detail response message; (Jeon ¶ 7 discloses that “the EVCC of the EV may discover [i.e., search for] a specific primary device which is the most suitable to the EV among a plurality of primary devices connected to at least one SECC in a charging station” such that “messages, such as a low layer protocol setup with SECC, ... , a high level service discovery/compatibility [i.e., a compatible parameter], an EV off-board power transfer communication pairing, a potential setup with alternate SECC, alignment communications, ... may be used between the SECC 20 and the EVCC 10,” see ¶ 73. Also see ¶ 100.)
changing a state from a service detail state to a vehicle positioning setup state for vehicle positioning using an automatic connection device or wireless power transfer if the compatible parameter is not found; and (Jeon ¶ 7 discloses that “The EV may then perform the charging of the battery after ... aligning the EV with the charging station,” indicating that the EV had not previously been aligned and therefore changing the state to a vehicle positioning setup for vehicle positioning, and wherein the EV may “automatically discover a specific charging spot among a plurality of charging spots,” see ¶ 8. The Examiner further notes that the claim appears to contain a contingent limitation (e.g., “if”) and is therefore not required under the broadest reasonable interpretation. See MPEP 2111.)
transmitting a vehicle positioning setup request message to the SECC in the vehicle positioning setup state. (Jeon ¶ 89 discloses that “the first transmit signal may be transmitted through an antenna directly connected to the SECC,” wherein the EVCC 10 receives the first transmit signal from SECC 20 and attempts a connection with the SECC 20 based on a common identifier included in the first transmit signal, see ¶ 104)
While Jeon does not expressly disclose changing a state from a service detail state to a vehicle positioning setup state for vehicle positioning, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the alignment of the EV to the changing station disclosed by Jeon to have expressly incorporated changing a state of the vehicle from a service detail state to a vehicle positioning setup state, with reasonable expectation of success, to enable the EV to efficiently discover a specific PD located in a specific charging spot through a primary device discovery method (Jeon ¶ 133) and enhance user convenience (Jeon ¶ 14), rendering the limitation to be an obvious modification.
Regarding claim 3, Jeon discloses the early renegotiation method according to claim 1, wherein:
transmitting the vehicle positioning setup request message to the SECC is performed within a preset sequence performance timeout period. (Jeon ¶ 95 discloses that “the EVCC may select a PD corresponding to the highest signal level as the specific PD [primary device],” such that “the specific PD may be selected based on an average value of received signal strengths of the second transmit signals received more than predetermined times,” the number of predetermined times being within “a predetermined time duration [i.e., a preset timeout period],” see ¶ 113)
Regarding claim 4, Jeon discloses the early renegotiation method according to claim 1, further comprising:
before receiving the service detail response message, transmitting and receiving messages for service discovery with the SECC. (Jeon Fig. 4 depicts “a primary device discovery method based on exchange of messages and data between the EVCC of the EV and the SECC of the charging station,” see ¶ 88, and specifically depicting transmitting a first connection request signal (S42) before receiving a response to a connection request signal (S43), see corresponding ¶ 91)
Regarding claim 8, Jeon discloses an early renegotiation method performed by an electric vehicle in a message sequence between the electric vehicle and a grid (Jeon ¶ 41), the early renegotiation method comprising:
receiving a vehicle positioning setup response message from a supply equipment communication controller (SECC); (Jeon ¶ 10 discloses “a method for discovering a specific primary device (PD) of an electric vehicle supply equipment (EVSE), performed by a discovery apparatus of an electric vehicle (EV) including ... receiving a first transmit signal including a first network identifier from at least one of a supply equipment communication controller (SECC) of a charging station into which the EV enters,” including “receiving a first response to the first connection request signal from the SECC,” see ¶ 11)
searching for a compatible method for positioning or pairing for an automatic connection device or wireless power transfer; (Jeon ¶ 7 discloses that “the EVCC of the EV may discover [i.e., search for] a specific primary device which is the most suitable to the EV among a plurality of primary devices connected to at least one SECC in a charging station” such that “messages, such as a low layer protocol setup with SECC, ... , a high level service discovery/compatibility [i.e., a compatible parameter], an EV off-board power transfer communication pairing, a potential setup with alternate SECC, alignment communications, ... may be used between the SECC 20 and the EVCC 10,” see ¶ 73. Also see ¶ 100.)
jumping from a vehicle positioning setup state to an authorization setup state in order to proceed to direct current charging or alternating current charging if the compatible method is not available; and (Jeon ¶ 7 discloses that “the EVCC of the EV may discover [i.e., search for] a specific primary device which is the most suitable to the EV among a plurality of primary devices connected to at least one SECC in a charging station” such that “messages, such as a low layer protocol setup with SECC, ... , a high level service discovery/compatibility [i.e., a compatible parameter], an EV off-board power transfer communication pairing, a potential setup with alternate SECC, alignment communications, ... may be used between the SECC 20 and the EVCC 10,” see ¶ 73, and after “obtaining necessary authentication and right,” automatically [i.e., jumping to] performing charging, see ¶ 42. The Examiner further notes that the claim appears to contain a contingent limitation (e.g., “if”) and is therefore not required under the broadest reasonable interpretation. See MPEP 2111.)
transmitting an authorization setup request message to the SECC in the authorization setup state. (Jeon ¶ 89 discloses that “the first transmit signal may be transmitted through an antenna directly connected to the SECC,” wherein the EVCC 10 receives the first transmit signal from SECC 20 and attempts a connection with the SECC 20 based on a common identifier included in the first transmit signal, see ¶ 104, such that “after a vehicle is located in a proper position corresponding to a primary charger assembly,” automatic charging is performed, which includes first obtaining “necessary authentication and right [i.e. an authorization setup state]”)
While Jeon does not expressly disclose changing a state from a service detail state to a vehicle positioning setup state for vehicle positioning, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the alignment of the EV to the changing station disclosed by Jeon to have expressly incorporated jumping from a vehicle positioning setup state to an authorization setup state in order to proceed to direct current charging or alternating current charging if the compatible method is not available, with reasonable expectation of success, to maximize user convenience by enabling the EV to automatically discover a specific charging spot among a plurality of charging spots which are respectively located in parking bays (Jeon ¶ 8), rendering the limitation to be an obvious modification.
Regarding claim 10, Jeon discloses the parallel limitations contained in parent claim 3 for the reasons discussed above.
Regarding claim 15, Jeon discloses the parallel limitations contained in parent claim 8 for the reasons discussed above. Jeon further discloses “a memory storing program instructions; and a processor that is connected to the memory and executes the program instructions stored in the memory, wherein when executed by the processor, the program instructions cause the processor to perform” the limitations of claim 1. (Jeon in at least ¶ 30).
Regarding claim 17, Jeon discloses the parallel limitations contained in parent claim 3 for the reasons discussed above.
Regarding claim 18, Jeon discloses the apparatus according to claim 15, wherein:
the program instructions further cause the processor to perform: transmitting the authorization setup request message to the SECC within a preset sequence performance timeout period. (Jeon ¶ 113 discloses that “the EVCC 10 may receive wireless signals of each PD belonging to the candidate group ten times for a predetermined time duration [i.e., within a preset sequence performance timeout period]” and selecting “a specific PD having the highest average value of received signal strengths as a pairing target for charging of the EV (S65),” wherein the charging of the EV is performed after obtaining, thereby having been transmitted, “necessary authentication and right [i.e., authorization setup request message],” see ¶ 42)
Regarding claim 19, Jeon discloses the parallel limitations contained in parent claim 11 for the reasons discussed above.
Regarding claim 20, Jeon discloses the parallel limitations contained in parent claim 4 for the reasons discussed above.
Claims 2, 9, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeon et al. (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2017/0164179) in view of Jang (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2019/0039465).
Regarding claim 2, Jeon does not expressly disclose the early renegotiation method according to claim 1, wherein:
the changing of the state is performed when a session stop response message having a response code set to 'OK' is received in a state in which a charge progress parameter of a last session stop request message of a previous sequence is set to 'Renegotiation' or 'ServiceRenegotiation'.
However, Jang discloses:
the changing of the state is performed when a session stop response message having a response code set to 'OK' is received in a state in which a charge progress parameter of a last session stop request message of a previous sequence is set to 'Renegotiation' or 'ServiceRenegotiation'. (Jang ¶ 116 discloses that “the EVCC 100 may transmit a ‘PowerDeliveryReq’ message to the SECC 200 and receive a ‘PowerDeliveryRes’ message in response thereto,” wherein “the EVCC 100 may notify the SECC 200 of the completion of the charging through a PowerDeliveryReq message (e.g., a ChargeProgress element in the PowerDeliveryReq message is set to ‘Renegotiation’) (S761),” see ¶ 152, such that “a positioning, alignment and pairing procedure for the EV may be performed (S730),” see ¶ 130)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have combined the authentication for charging of Jeon with the changing of the state from a service detail state to a vehicle positioning setup state for vehicle positioning being performed when performed when a session stop response message having a response code set to 'OK' is received in a state in which a charge progress parameter of a last session stop request message of a previous sequence is set to 'Renegotiation' or 'ServiceRenegotiation,' as disclosed by Jang, with reasonable expectation of success, because in order for efficient wireless charging to be performed, fine positioning of the EV with respect to a charging pad of the charger, alignment of the transmission pad of the charger and a reception pad of the EV, and pairing therebetween are required (Jang ¶ 130), rendering the limitation to be an obvious modification.
Regarding claim 9, Jeon in combination with Jang discloses the parallel limitations contained in parent claim 2 for the reasons discussed above.
Regarding claim 16, Jeon in combination with Jang discloses the parallel limitations contained in parent claim 2 for the reasons discussed above.
Claims 5-7 and 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeon et al. (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2017/0164179) in view of Ahmed et al. (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2018/0105053).
Regarding claim 5, Jeon discloses the early renegotiation method according to claim 1, further comprising:
before receiving the service detail response message, establishing a [secure] connection. (Jeon ¶ 42 discloses that “automatic charging may be performed after obtaining necessary authentication and right,” the authenticated [i.e., secured] connection thereby having been established first.)
Jeon does not expressly disclose:
a transport layer security (TLS) connection
However, Ahmed discloses:
a transport layer security (TLS) connection (Ahmed ¶ 43 discloses that “Multiple parameters are used by a wireless power transfer system to determine compatibility between the vehicle charging coil and a ground pad/charging coil” including “security support (TLS).”)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have combined the authentication of Jeon with a transport layer security (TLS) connection, as disclosed by Ahmed, with reasonable expectation of success, to facilitate error-free connections (Ahmed ¶ 51), rendering the limitation to be an obvious modification.
Regarding claim 6, Jeon in combination with Ahmed discloses the early renegotiation method according to claim 5, further comprising:
transmitting a supported application protocol (SAP) request message to the SECC after the TLS connection is completed. (Ahmed ¶ 51 discloses that a supported protocol may accompany a credential broadcast [i.e., transmission], which occurs after the vehicle is departed, see Fig. 2B. One having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that charging, and therefore the TLS connection, is complete when the vehicle departs the charging pad.)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have combined the process of Jeon with a supported application protocol being transmitted to the SECC after the TLS connection is complete, as disclosed by Ahmed, with reasonable expectation of success, to prevent inadvertent connection (Ahmed ¶ 64), rendering the limitation to be an obvious modification.
Regarding claim 7, Jeon in combination with Ahmed discloses the early renegotiation method according to claim 6, further comprising:
after receiving an SAP response message for the SAP request message, transmitting a session setup request message to the SECC within a preset sequence performance timeout period. (Ahmed ¶ 61 discloses “Once the vehicle is properly positioned, the charging can be engaged 209. The process estimates a charging time 213,” and “Until the timeout occurs 409 [i.e., within a preset sequence performance timeout period], the process will broadcast [i.e., transmit] the timer 413. Both the accepting vehicle and other vehicles may receive this timer broadcast,” see ¶ 72)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have combined the session setup of Jeon with transmitting a session setup request message to the SECC within a preset sequence performance timeout period after receiving an SAP response message for the SAP request message, as disclosed by Ahmed, with reasonable expectation of success, so that any and all interested drivers may know how long before the pad will be available based on non-use (Ahmed ¶ 72), and to provide for a time-saving, efficient connection vetting that will help ensure maximum up-time for charging points (Ahmed ¶ 84), rendering the limitation to be an obvious modification.
Regarding claim 11, Jeon in combination with Ahmed discloses the early renegotiation method according to claim 8, further comprising:
after transmitting the authorization setup request message to the SECC, transmitting a service discovery request message to the SECC. (Ahmed ¶ 36 discloses that “the vehicle system presenting [i.e., transmitting] proper security credentials (SSID, password, etc.), authenticating, and then actually joining the Wi-Fi communication network of the wireless charging system [i.e., service discovery request after transmitting the authorization setup request],” such that the vehicle first associates with an Access Point “In order for the charging control message exchange to begin,” and wherein the formal connection allows the vehicle to discover “a proper utilizable charging pad,” see ¶ 46)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have combined the discovery of Jeon with expressly disclosing transmitting a service discovery request message to the SECC after transmitting the authorization setup request message to the SECC, as disclosed by Ahmed, with reasonable expectation of success, because having an initial compatibility check prior to actually connecting to and exchanging data with a wireless access point, may save a driver a lot of annoyance (Ahmed ¶ 42), and determining compatibility in advance can save a driver time and effort involved in precisely maneuvering a vehicle into position (Ahmed ¶ 46), rendering the limitation to be an obvious modification.
Regarding claim 12, Jeon in combination with Ahmed discloses the parallel limitations contained in parent claim 5 for the reasons discussed above.
Regarding claim 13, Jeon in combination with Ahmed discloses the parallel limitations contained in parent claim 6 for the reasons discussed above.
Regarding claim 14, Jeon in combination with Ahmed discloses the parallel limitations contained in parent claim 7 for the reasons discussed above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Wiseman et al. (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2020/0238847) discloses a system to prioritize power delivery from a charging station to electric vehicles, including a constrained optimizer may allocate power to the electric vehicle, relative to other electric vehicles being charged at the charging station.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHANIE T SU whose telephone number is (571)272-5326. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 9:30AM - 5:00PM EST.
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, ANISS CHAD can be reached at (571)270-3832. 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.
/STEPHANIE T SU/ Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3662