DETAILED ACTION
This non-final action is in response to the request for continued examination (RCE), filed 18 June 2025, and amendment, filed 19 May 2025, which were in reply to the final action dated 19 May 2025.
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 18 June 2025 has been entered.
Response to RCE and Amendments
Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 1, 5, 6, 8-10, 13- 17 and 20 have been amended.
With regard to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claims 1-20 (pgs. 2-25, Final), applicant’s amendments have necessitated additional searching and consideration of new grounds of rejection. Accordingly, the new grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 are: claims 1-4, 7-12 and 14-19 in view of Ashby, Salter and Datta; and claims 5, 6, 13 and 20 in view of Ashby, Salter, Datta and Ricci, as discussed below.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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 non-obviousness.
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.
Claims 1-4, 7-12 and 14-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication Number 2019/0263271 to Ashby et al. (hereafter Ashby) in view of U.S. Patent Publication Number 2023/0052002 to Salter et al. (hereafter Salter) and U.S. Patent Publication Number 2020/0031471 to Datta et al. (hereafter Datta).
As per claim 1, Ashby discloses [a] system of a first vehicle (see at least Ashby, Abstract) comprising:
a memory that stores computer executable components (see at least Ashby, [0035] disclosing that the hardware of the mobile wireless devices 90 and 96 may comprise: a processor and memory (e.g., non-transitory computer readable medium accessible by the processor) for storing the software needed to implement the charge session swap application 92 and 98); and
a processor that executes at least one of the computer executable components (see at least Ashby, [0035]; [0038]; [0050] disclosing that the body control module (BCM) 24 is shown in the exemplary embodiment of FIG. 1 as being electrically coupled to communication bus 28. In some embodiments, the BCM 24 may be integrated with or part of a center stack module (CSM) and/or integrated with wireless communications device 30. Or, the BCM may be a separate device that is connected to other VSMs via bus 44. BCM 24 can include a processor and/or memory, which can be similar to processor 36 and memory 38 of wireless communications device 30), that,
broadcasts a request for emergency charging of the first electric vehicle (see at least Ashby, [0062] disclosing that the steps of the method 200 discussed below may be carried out via a service provider, an application, or some combination of both. When utilizing a service provider some information may be conveyed directly to or routed through the service provider in order for it to reach the intended recipient, primarily being either the primary EV user, the secondary EV user or, in some instances a computing device. If an application is being utilized it may require that a user account is established and stored at a central facility, such as remote facility 80. When the application (such as charge session application 92,98) is utilized on the mobile wireless device, the application can access the user account at the central facility and proceed with conveying any or all of the following; a request for charge session swap), ... (1) ... (2); and
initiating a communication between a first electric vehicle and second electric vehicle to coordinate provisioning of an emergency charging (see at least Ashby, abstract, disclosing a method and system for use in performing a real-time charge session swap between a primary electric vehicle located at a charging station of an electric vehicle charging facility and a secondary electric vehicle located at the electric vehicle charging facility, comprising the steps of: (a) receiving via a mobile wireless device a request for an electric vehicle charge session swap; [0061] disclosing that With reference to FIG. 2, there is an embodiment of a method 200 for establishing and carrying a request for a real-time charge session swap. While the method 200 is described in conjunction with the real-time charge session swap system 10 of Fig. 1) ... (3). But, Ashby does not explicitly teach the following limitation taught in Salter:
(1) wherein the request specifies a current location of the first electric vehicle, an amount of electric charge needed (see at least Salter, [0051]; [0055] disclosing that charge request parameters 407 can include parameter(s) (e.g., an address, GPS coordinates, etc.) indicating a location at which the battery charge transfer is to be conducted; [0056] disclosing that charge request parameters 407 can include parameter(s) indicating a required amount of charge to be transferred (or a required charge level to be reached) and/or a required charging rate/speed for the battery charge transfer. In some implementations, charge request parameters 407 can include parameter(s) indicating a desired start time for the battery charge transfer) ... . But Ashby, as modified by Salter, does not explicitly teach the following limitations taught in Datta:
(2) wherein the request specifies ... a defined joint speed of vehicle movement while performing the emergency charging (see at least Datta, [0056] disclosing that the positioning unit 108 includes any suitable electronic device used to determine location data and/or heading data of vehicle 12. Non-limiting examples of positioning unit 108 include a Global Positioning System (GPS) device or a Global Navigation Satellite System (GLONASS) device. As described below, when making a fuel delivery request, computer 20 may receive location and/or heading data from positioning unit 108 and provide to the UAV 14. A non-limiting example of location data includes latitude and longitude (LAT/LONG) data; and a non-limiting example of heading data includes a vehicle speed and direction—e.g., which may be relative to a determinable roadway (e.g., which is determined using, at least in part, location data)<interpreted as a joint speed of vehicle movement while performing the emergency charging >); and
(3) provisioning of the emergency charging from the second electric vehicle to the first electric vehicle (see at least Datta, [0111] disclosing that as shown in FIGS. 9-10 (see fuel-receiver 18″). UAV 14 may deliver a fuel parcel 140″ comprising a wireless charger (e.g., wherein the payload is electrical energy in the form of electrical charge). Fuel parcel 140″ may include a battery 200, a transformer 202, and a transmitter coil 204, wherein the computer 130 on UAV 14 is programmed to actuate the transmitter coil 204 to wirelessly charge another device—e.g., such as fuel-receiver 18″ on vehicle 12″ (e.g., which again may be an electric vehicle)).
Ashby, Salter and Datta are analogous art to claim 1 because they are in the same field of messaging to direct electric charge transfer to/from one or more battery cells and/or multi-cell battery packs of an electric vehicle. Ashby relates to methods and systems for charging electric vehicles owned or operated by different people at an electric vehicle charging facility (see Ashby, at Abstract, [0001]). Salter relates to a system for determining a pool of multiple charge providing vehicles to initiate a message instructing the providing vehicles to initiate a battery charge transfer according to transfer parameters (see Salter, at Abstract). Datta relates to a processor that stores instructions that initiate, from a vehicle, a fuel delivery request for fuel delivery by an unmanned aerial vehicle (see Datta, Abstract, [0111]).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system, as disclosed in Ashby, to provide the benefit of having the request specify a current location of the first electric vehicle, an amount of electric charge needed, and a defined joint speed of vehicle movement while performing the emergency charge, and provisioning of an emergency charging between the first electric vehicle and the second electric vehicle, as disclosed in Salter and Datta, with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so would provide the benefit of charging electric vehicles which run out of power at a distance from a static service / charging station.
As per claim 2, the combination of Ashby, Salter and Datta discloses all of the limitations of claim 1, as shown above. Salter further discloses the following limitation:
wherein the at least one of the computer executable components further: verifies, based on response received from the second electric vehicle, that the second electric vehicle is within a defined distance from the first electric vehicle, has a state of charge that is sufficient to provide the amount of electric charge needed, and is capable of providing the defined electric charge transfer speed for performing the emergency charging (see at least Salter, [0028] disclosing sending a confirmation request to the selected charge-providing vehicle, receiving a confirmation from the selected charge-providing vehicle in response to the confirmation request, and sending the transfer initiation message responsive to receipt of the confirmation from the selected charge-providing vehicle <interpreted as verifying>; [0056]; [0073] disclosing that transfer parameters 416 can include parameters specifying an amount of charge to be transferred and a price to be paid for the transferred charge (e.g., per unit of charge or for the total amount of transferred charge); [0075] disclosing that charge transfer coordinator 302 can send a transfer initiation message 418 to charge-providing vehicle 405B to instruct charge-providing vehicle 405B to initiate the battery charge transfer. In some implementations, responsive to receipt of transfer initiation message 418, a prompt can be presented on a user interface of charge-providing vehicle 405B (or of an associated user device executing client application 304) to instruct an owner/operator of charge-providing vehicle 405B to drive charge-providing vehicle 405B to the designated location for the battery charge transfer <interpreted as within a defined distance>).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system, as disclosed in Ashby, as modified by Salter and Datta, to provide the benefit of verifying, based on response received from the second electric vehicle, that the second electric vehicle is within a defined distance from the first electric vehicle, has a state of charge that is sufficient to provide the amount of electric charge needed, and is capable of providing the defined electric charge transfer speed for performing the emergency charging, as further disclosed in Salter, with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so would provide the benefit of charging electric vehicles which run out of power at a distance from a static service / charging station.
As per claim 3, the combination of Ashby, Salter and Datta discloses all of the limitations of claim 1, as shown above. Ashby and Salter further disclose the following limitations:
wherein he at least one of the computer executable components (see at least Ashby, [0027] disclosing that the charge need metrics can be used to indicate how essential charging is for the secondary EV user in order for travel needs to be met (or other related needs), which can include departure time, present state of energy, distance to next destination, and other factors that may influence the EV user's desire to charge their EV sooner. Charge bid metrics can represent a financial incentive (or other consideration) that the secondary EV user intends to offer the primary EV user in consideration for relinquishing their use of a charging station or stall) further:
receives, via the communication channel, an offer for the emergency charging from the second electric vehicle (see at least Salter, [0056] disclosing that charge request parameters 407 can include parameter(s) indicating minimum acceptable performance/reliability ratings for charge-providing vehicle 405B. In some implementations, charge request parameters 407 can include parameter(s) indicating terms/conditions for the battery charge transfer (e.g., a price per unit of transferred charge or a collective price for the transferred charge, payment terms, etc.) <interpreted as offer / acceptance>; [0075]).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system, as disclosed in Ashby, as modified by Salter and Datta, to provide the benefit of receiving, via the communication channel, an offer for the emergency charging from the second electric vehicle, as further disclosed in Ashby and Salter, with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so would provide the benefit of charging electric vehicles which run out of power at a distance from a static service / charging station.
As per claim 4, the combination of Ashby, Salter and Datta discloses all of the limitations of claim 1, as shown above. Ashby further discloses the following limitations:
wherein the at least one of the computer executable components (see at least Ashby, [0027]) further:
sending, via the communication channel, an acceptance of the offer to a vehicle system of the second electric vehicle (see at least Ashby, [0028] disclosing charge bid metrics can be conveyed to a user of the primary EV using mobile devices of the users of the primary EV and secondary EV. A user of the secondary EV can use their mobile device to input or select charge bid metrics, which can then be sent to a mobile device of the primary EV user. The primary EV user can then agree to relinquish control of the station in exchange for the charge bid amount).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system, as disclosed in Ashby, as modified by Salter and Datta, to provide the benefit of sending, via the communication channel, an acceptance of the offer to a vehicle system of the second electric vehicle, as further disclosed in Ashby, with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so would provide the benefit of charging electric vehicles which run out of power at a distance from a static service / charging station.
As per claim 7, the combination of Ashby, Salter and Datta discloses all of the limitations of claim 1, as shown above. Ashby further disclose the following limitation:
wherein the communication channel employs a mobile device operatively coupled to the system (see at least Ashby, Abstract; [0029] disclosing that with reference to Fig. 1, there is shown an operating environment that comprises a communications system 10 that can be used to implement a method 200 (FIG. 2) disclosed herein. The communications system 10 generally includes a primary electric vehicle (EV) 12 with a wireless communications device 30, a secondary EV 14 with a wireless communications device (not shown), a constellation of satellites 60, a wireless carrier system 70, a land communications network 76, a computer 78, a remote facility 80, an electric vehicle charging facility 82, a first mobile wireless device 90 which is used by either the primary EV 14 (or a user of the primary EV 12) or by a service provider, and a second mobile wireless device 96 that is used by the secondary EV 14 (or a user of the secondary EV 14)).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system, as disclosed in Ashby, as modified by Salter and Datta, to provide the benefit of having the communication employs a mobile device operatively coupled to the system, as further disclosed in Ashby, with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so would provide the benefit of charging electric vehicles which run out of power at a distance from a static service / charging station.
As per claim 8, the combination of Ashby, Salter and Datta discloses all of the limitations of claim 1, as shown above. Datta and Salter further disclose the following limitations:
wherein the at least one of the computer executable components further: requests routing of at least one of the first electric vehicle or the second electric vehicle (see at least Datta, [0063] disclosing that he server 116 instead may be programmed with unique instructions which enable the server 116 to carry out management of a fleet of UAVs and delivery requests from multiple vehicles. Server databases may store information pertaining to the routing paths of the UAV fleet, account data associated with multiple users, multiple vehicles, etc.)
to a defined location for performing the emergency charging from the second electric vehicle to the first electric vehicle (see at least Salter, [0005]).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system, as disclosed in Ashby, as modified by Salter and Datta, to provide the benefit of requesting routing of at least one of the first electric vehicle or the second electric vehicle to a defined location for performing the emergency charging from the second electric vehicle to the first electric vehicle, as further disclosed in Datta and Salter, with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so would provide the benefit of charging electric vehicles which run out of power at a distance from a static service / charging station.
As per claim 9, similar to claim 1, Ashby discloses [a] method (see at least Ashby, Abstract) comprising:
broadcasting, by a first vehicle, a request for emergency charging of the first electric vehicle (see at least Ashby, [0062]), ... (1) ... (2); and
initiating, by the first vehicle, a communication channel between the first electric vehicle and second electric vehicle that has responded to the request to coordinate provisioning of the emergency charging from the second vehicle (see at least Ashby, abstract,; [0061]) ... (3). But, Ashby does not explicitly teach the following limitation taught in Salter:
(1) wherein the request specifies a current location of the first electric vehicle, an amount of electric charge needed (see at least Salter, [0051]; [0055]) ... . But Ashby, as modified by Salter, does not explicitly teach the following limitations taught in Datta:
(2) wherein the request specifies ... a defined joint speed of vehicle movement while performing the emergency charging (see at least Datta, [0056] disclosing that the positioning unit 108 includes any suitable electronic device used to determine location data and/or heading data of vehicle 12. Non-limiting examples of positioning unit 108 include a Global Positioning System (GPS) device or a Global Navigation Satellite System (GLONASS) device. As described below, when making a fuel delivery request, computer 20 may receive location and/or heading data from positioning unit 108 and provide to the UAV 14. A non-limiting example of location data includes latitude and longitude (LAT/LONG) data; and a non-limiting example of heading data includes a vehicle speed and direction—e.g., which may be relative to a determinable roadway (e.g., which is determined using, at least in part, location data)<interpreted as a joint speed of vehicle movement while performing the emergency charging >); and
(3) initiating, by the first vehicle, a communication channel between the first electric vehicle and second electric vehicle that has responded to the request to coordinate provisioning of the emergency charging from the second electric vehicle to the first electric vehicle (see at least Datta, [0111]).
Ashby, Salter and Datta are analogous art to claim 9 because they are in the same field of messaging to direct electric charge transfer to/from one or more battery cells and/or multi-cell battery packs of an electric vehicle. Ashby relates to methods and systems for charging electric vehicles owned or operated by different people at an electric vehicle charging facility (see Ashby, at Abstract, [0001]). Salter relates to a system for determining a pool of multiple charge providing vehicles to initiate a message instructing the providing vehicles to initiate a battery charge transfer according to transfer parameters (see Salter, at Abstract). Datta relates to a processor that stores instructions that initiate, from a vehicle, a fuel delivery request for fuel delivery by an unmanned aerial vehicle (see Datta, Abstract, [0111]).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system, as disclosed in Ashby, to provide the benefit of having the request specify a current location of the first electric vehicle, an amount of electric charge needed, and a defined joint speed of vehicle movement while performing the emergency charge, and provisioning of an emergency charging between the first electric vehicle and the second electric vehicle, as disclosed in Salter and Datta, with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so would provide the benefit of charging electric vehicles which run out of power at a distance from a static service / charging station.
As per claim 10, similar to claim 2, the combination of Ashby, Salter and Datta and Salter discloses all of the limitations of claim 9, as shown above. Ashby further discloses the following limitation:
verifying, by the first electric vehicle, based on response received from the second vehicle that the second electric vehicle is within a defined distance from the first electric vehicle, has a state of charge that is sufficient to provide the amount of electric charge needed, and is capable of providing a defined electric charge transfer speed for performing the emergency charging (see at least Salter, [0028]; [0056]; [0073]).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system, as disclosed in Ashby, as modified by Salter and Datta, to provide the benefit of verifying, based on response received from the second electric vehicle, that the second electric vehicle is within a defined distance from the first electric vehicle, has a state of charge that is sufficient to provide the amount of electric charge needed, and is capable of providing the defined electric charge transfer speed for performing the emergency charging, as further disclosed in Salter, with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so would provide the benefit of charging electric vehicles which run out of power at a distance from a static service / charging station.
As per claim 11, similar to claim 3, the combination of Ashby, Salter and Datta discloses all of the limitations of claim 9, as shown above. Ashby further discloses the following limitation:
receiving, by the first vehicle, via the communication channel, an offer for the emergency charging from the second electric vehicle (see at least Salter, [0056]; [0075]).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system, as disclosed in Ashby, as modified by Salter and Datta, to provide the benefit of receiving, via the communication channel, an offer for the emergency charging from the second electric vehicle, as further disclosed in Ashby and Salter, with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so would provide the benefit of charging electric vehicles which run out of power at a distance from a static service / charging station.
As per claim 12, similar to claim 4, the combination of Ashby, Salter and Datta discloses all of the limitations of claim 9, as shown above. Ashby further discloses the following limitation:
sending, by the first electric vehicle, via the communication channel, an acceptance of the offer to the second electric vehicle (see at least Ashby, [0028]).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system, as disclosed in Ashby and Salter, to provide the benefit of sending, by the first electric vehicle, via the communication channel, an acceptance of the offer to the second electric vehicle, as further disclosed in Ashby, with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so would provide the benefit of charging electric vehicles which run out of power at a distance from a static service / charging station.
As per claim 14, the combination of Ashby, Salter and Datta discloses all of the limitations of claim 9, as shown above. Ashby and Salter further disclose the following limitations:
generating, by the first electric vehicle, a route from the current location of the first electric vehicle (see at least Ashby, [0049] disclosing that position information can be supplied to the remote facility 80 or other remote computer system, such as the computer 78, for other purposes, such as fleet management. Also, new or updated map data can be downloaded to the GNSS receiver 22 from the remote facility 80 via a vehicle wireless communications device 30; [0078] disclosing that If the primary EV 12 is moved by autonomous means, the primary EV user may be notified upon completion of the move with information regarding the move, such as the new location of the primary EV 12. This could be accomplished via a service provider or via the charge session swap app 92 using the first mobile wireless device 90. The method 200 continues to step 270)
to a defined location for performing the emergency charging from the second electric vehicle to the first electric vehicle (see at least Salter, [0055] disclosing that the charge request parameters 407 can include parameter(s) (e.g., an address, GPS coordinates, etc.) indicating a location at which the battery charge transfer is to be conducted <interpreted as the defined location for performing the emergency charging>).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system, as disclosed in Ashby, as modified by Salter and Datta, to provide the benefit of requesting routing of the second electric vehicle to a defined location for performing the emergency charging from the second electric vehicle to the first electric vehicle, as further disclosed in Ashby and Salter, with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so would provide the benefit of charging electric vehicles which run out of power at a distance from a static service / charging station.
As per claim 15, the combination of Ashby, Salter and Datta discloses all of the limitations of claim 9, Ashby and Salter further disclose the following limitation:
generating, by the first electric vehicle, a route from the current location of the first electric vehicle (see at least Ashby, [0027] disclosing that charge need metrics can be used to indicate how essential charging is for the secondary EV user in order for travel needs to be met (or other related needs), which can include departure time, present state of energy, distance to next destination, and other factors that may influence the EV user's desire to charge their EV sooner. Charge bid metrics can represent a financial incentive (or other consideration) that the secondary EV user intends to offer the primary EV user in consideration for relinquishing their use of a charging station or stall; [0049]; [0068]; [0078] disclosing that the primary EV 12 may drive itself autonomously for part or all of the distance to make the charging station available for the secondary EV 14.)
to a defined location for performing the emergency charging from the second electric vehicle to the first electric vehicle (see at least Salter, [0055] ).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system, as disclosed in Ashby, as modified by Salter and Datta, to provide the benefit of generating a route from the current location of the first electric vehicle to a defined location for performing the emergency charging from the second electric vehicle to the first electric vehicle, as further disclosed in Ashby and Salter, with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so would provide the benefit of charging electric vehicles which run out of power at a distance from a static service / charging station.
As per claim 16, similar to claim 1 and 9, Ashby discloses [a] non-transitory machine-readable medium, having instructions stored thereon that, in response to execution cause a processor of a first vehicle (see at least Ashby, [0035]; [0038]; [0050]), to perform operations comprising:
broadcasting a request for emergency charging of the first electric vehicle (see at least Ashby, [0062]), ... (1) ... (2); and
initiating a communication channel between the first electric vehicle and second electric vehicle that has responded to the request to coordinate provisioning of the emergency charging from the second vehicle (see at least Ashby, abstract,; [0061]) ... (3). ). But, Ashby does not explicitly teach the following limitation taught in Salter:
(1) wherein the request specifies a current location of the first electric vehicle, an amount of electric charge needed (see at least Salter, [0051]; [0055]) ... . But Ashby, as modified by Salter, does not explicitly teach the following limitations taught in Datta:
(2) wherein the request specifies ... a defined joint speed of vehicle movement while performing the emergency charging (see at least Datta, [0056] disclosing that the positioning unit 108 includes any suitable electronic device used to determine location data and/or heading data of vehicle 12. Non-limiting examples of positioning unit 108 include a Global Positioning System (GPS) device or a Global Navigation Satellite System (GLONASS) device. As described below, when making a fuel delivery request, computer 20 may receive location and/or heading data from positioning unit 108 and provide to the UAV 14. A non-limiting example of location data includes latitude and longitude (LAT/LONG) data; and a non-limiting example of heading data includes a vehicle speed and direction—e.g., which may be relative to a determinable roadway (e.g., which is determined using, at least in part, location data)<interpreted as a joint speed of vehicle movement while performing the emergency charging >); and
(3) initiating, by the first vehicle, a communication channel between the first electric vehicle and second electric vehicle that has responded to the request to coordinate provisioning of the emergency charging from the second electric vehicle to the first electric vehicle (see at least Datta, [0111]).
Ashby, Salter and Datta are analogous art to claim 16 because they are in the same field of messaging to direct electric charge transfer to/from one or more battery cells and/or multi-cell battery packs of an electric vehicle. Ashby relates to methods and systems for charging electric vehicles owned or operated by different people at an electric vehicle charging facility (see Ashby, at Abstract, [0001]). Salter relates to a system for determining a pool of multiple charge providing vehicles to initiate a message instructing the providing vehicles to initiate a battery charge transfer according to transfer parameters (see Salter, at Abstract). Datta relates to a processor that stores instructions that initiate, from a vehicle, a fuel delivery request for fuel delivery by an unmanned aerial vehicle (see Datta, Abstract, [0111]).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system, as disclosed in Ashby, to provide the benefit of having the request specify a current location of the first electric vehicle, an amount of electric charge needed, and a defined joint speed of vehicle movement while performing the emergency charge, and provisioning of an emergency charging between the first electric vehicle and the second electric vehicle, as disclosed in Salter and Datta, with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so would provide the benefit of charging electric vehicles which run out of power at a distance from a static service / charging station.
As per claim 17, similar to claims 2 and 10, the combination of Ashby, Salter and Datta discloses all of the limitations of claim 16, as shown above. Ashby further discloses the following limitation:
verifying, based on response received from the second vehicle, that the second electric vehicle is within a defined distance from the first electric vehicle, has a state of charge that is sufficient to provide the amount of electric charge needed, and is capable of providing the defined electric charge transfer speed for performing the emergency charging (see at least Salter, [0028]; [0056]; [0073]).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system, as disclosed in Ashby, as modified by Salter and Datta, to provide the benefit of verifying, based on response received from the second electric vehicle, that the second electric vehicle is within a defined distance from the first electric vehicle, has a state of charge that is sufficient to provide the amount of electric charge needed, and is capable of providing the defined electric charge transfer speed for performing the emergency charging, as further disclosed in Salter, with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so would provide the benefit of charging electric vehicles which run out of power at a distance from a static service / charging station.
As per claim 18, similar to claims 3 and 11, the combination of Ashby, Salter and Datta discloses all of the limitations of claim 16, as shown above. Ashby further discloses the following limitation:
receiving, via the communication channel, an offer for the emergency charging from the second electric vehicle (see at least Salter, [0056]; [0075]).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system, as disclosed in Ashby, as modified by Salter and Datta, to provide the benefit of receiving, via the communication channel, an offer for the emergency charging from the second electric vehicle, as further disclosed in Ashby and Salter, with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so would provide the benefit of charging electric vehicles which run out of power at a distance from a static service / charging station.
As per claim 19, similar to claims 4 and 12, the combination of Ashby, Salter and Datta discloses all of the limitations of claim 16, as shown above. Ashby further discloses the following limitations:
sending, via the communication channel, an acceptance of the offer to the second electric vehicle (see at least Ashby, [0028]).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system, as disclosed in Ashby, as modified by Salter and Datta, to provide the benefit of sending, by the first electric vehicle, via the communication channel, an acceptance of the offer to the second electric vehicle, as further disclosed in Ashby, with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so would provide the benefit of charging electric vehicles which run out of power at a distance from a static service / charging station.
Claim 5, 6, 13 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ashby, Salten and Datta as applied to claims 1, 9 and 16 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Publication Number 2017/0141368 to Ricci.
As per claim 5, the combination of Ashby, Salter and Datta discloses all of the limitations of claim 1, as shown above. But, neither Ashby, Salter nor Datta explicitly teach the following limitations taught in Ricci:
wherein the at least one of the computer executable components further in response to the second electric vehicle being within a first defined distance of the first electric vehicle, initiates a process for performing the emergency charging from the second electric vehicle to the first electric vehicle (see at least Ricci, [0064] discussing charging plates ... disclosing that the charging plate 520 is positioned to a desired or selectable separation distance <interpreted as first defined distance>, as assisted by a separation distance sensor disposed on charging plate 520. Charging plate 520 may remain at a finite separation distance from charging panel 608, or may directly contact charging panel <interpreted as the second defined distance, and as such is less than the first distance> (i.e. such that separation distance is zero). Charging may be by induction; [0075] disclosing that the charging plate 520 position and/or characteristics (e.g. charging power level, flying separation distance, physical engagement on/off) are controlled by vehicle 100 and/or a user in or driver of vehicle 100; [0077] disclosing that charging panel 608 of vehicle 100 receives power from charger plate 520. Charging panel 608 and charger plate 520 may be in direct physical contact (termed a “contact” charger configuration) or not in direct physical contact (termed a “flyer” charger configuration) <interpreted as a second defined distance>, but must be at or below a threshold (separation) distance to enable charging, such as by induction. Energy transfer or charging from the charger plate 520 to the charging panel 608 is inductive charging (i.e. use of an EM field to transfer energy between two objects). The charging panel 608 provides received power to energy storage unit 612 by way of charging panel controller 610. Charging panel controller 610 is in communication with vehicle database 210, vehicle database 210 comprising an AV charging data structure),
wherein the process comprises: controlling the first electric vehicle to drive at the defined joint speed, and coordinating with the second electric vehicle to bring the second electric vehicle within a second defined distance of the first electric vehicle while the second electric vehicle is driving at the defined joint speed (see at least Ricci, [0078] disclosing that charger plate 520 may, in one embodiment, not be connected to AV 280 by way of tether 1010 and may instead be mounted directly on the AV 280, to include, for example, the wing, empennage, undercarriage to include landing gear, and may be deployable or extendable when required. Tether 1010 may be configured to maneuver charging plate 520 to any position on vehicle 100 so as to enable charging. Charging may occur while both AV 280 and vehicle 100 are moving ... . Control of the charging and/or positioning of the charging plate 520 may be manual, automatic or semi-automatic; said control may be performed through a GUI engaged by driver or occupant of receiving vehicle 100 and/or driver or occupant of charging AV 280),
wherein the second defined distance is shorter than the first defined distance (see at least Ricci, [0064] discussing charging plates ... disclosing that the charging plate 520 is positioned to a desired or selectable separation distance <interpreted as first defined distance>, as assisted by a separation distance sensor disposed on charging plate 520. Charging plate 520 may remain at a finite separation distance from charging panel 608, or may directly contact charging panel <interpreted as the second defined distance, and as such is less than the first distance> (i.e. such that separation distance is zero)).
Ashby, Salter, Datta and Ricci are analogous art to claim 5 because they are in the same field of messaging to direct electric charge transfer to/from one or more battery cells and/or multi-cell battery packs of an electric vehicle. Ashby relates to methods and systems for charging electric vehicles owned or operated by different people at an electric vehicle charging facility (see Ashby, at Abstract, [0001]). Salter relates to a system for determining a pool of multiple charge providing vehicles to initiate a message instructing the providing vehicles to initiate a battery charge transfer according to transfer parameters (see Salter, at Abstract). Datta relates to a processor that stores instructions that initiate, from a vehicle, a fuel delivery request for fuel delivery by an unmanned aerial vehicle (see Datta, Abstract, [0111]). Ricci relates to modular interconnection features facilitate the modular addition or subtraction of batteries in the universal battery power system to alter a power capacity of the system (see Ricci, Abstract).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system, as disclosed in Ashby, as modified by Salter and Datta, to provide the benefit of instantiating a process for performing the emergency charging from the second electric vehicle to the first electric vehicle in response to the second electric vehicle being within a first defined distance of the first electric vehicle, controlling the first electric vehicle to drive at the defined joint speed, and coordinating with the second electric vehicle to bring the second electric vehicle within a second defined distance of the first electric vehicle while the second electric vehicle is driving at the defined joint speed, and having the second defined distance is shorter than the first defined distance, as disclosed in Ricci, with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so would provide the benefit of providing selectively coupled together to share energy, increase power output, provide security and decrease power consumption (see Ricci, [0086]).
As per claim 6, the combination of Ashby, Salter and Datta discloses all of the limitations of claim 1, as shown above. But, neither Ashby, Salter nor Datta explicitly teach the following limitation taught in Ricci:
wherein the defined joint speed is based on surrounding traffic of the first electric vehicle (see at least Ricci, [0072] disclosing that a charging scheme may be particularly suited for operations in remote areas, in high traffic situations, and/or when the car is moving. The AV may be a specially-designed UAV, aka RPV or drone, with a charging panel that can extend from the AV to provide a charge; [0086] disclosing that Continuing this example, the vehicles may be coupled together based on travel route, destination, preferences, settings, sensor information, and/or some other data. The coupling may be initiated by at least one controller of the vehicle and/or traffic control system upon determining that a coupling is beneficial to one or more vehicles in a group of vehicles or a traffic system.).
Ashby, Salter, Datta and Ricci are analogous art to claim 6 because they are in the same field of messaging to direct electric charge transfer to/from one or more battery cells and/or multi-cell battery packs of an electric vehicle. Ashby relates to methods and systems for charging electric vehicles owned or operated by different people at an electric vehicle charging facility (see Ashby, at Abstract, [0001]). Salter relates to a system for determining a pool of multiple charge providing vehicles to initiate a message instructing the providing vehicles to initiate a battery charge transfer according to transfer parameters (see Salter, at Abstract). Datta relates to a processor that stores instructions that initiate, from a vehicle, a fuel delivery request for fuel delivery by an unmanned aerial vehicle (see Datta, Abstract, [0111]). Ricci relates to modular interconnection features facilitate the modular addition or subtraction of batteries in the universal battery power system to alter a power capacity of the system (see Ricci, Abstract).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system, as disclosed in Ashby, as modified by Salter and Datta, to provide the benefit of having the defined joint speed be based on surrounding traffic of the first electric vehicle, as disclosed in Ricci, with a reasonable expectation of success. Doing so would provide the benefit of providing selectively coupled together to share energy, increase power output, provide security and decrease power consumption (see Ricci, [0086]).
As per claim 13, similar to claim 5, the combination of Ashby, Salter and Datta discloses all of the limitations of claim 9, as shown above. But, neither Ashby, Salter nor Datta explicitly teach the following limitations taught in Ricci:
in response to the second electric vehicle being within a first defined distance of the first electric vehicle, initiating, by the first electric vehicle, a process for performing the emergency charging from the second electric vehicle to the first electric vehicle (see at least Ricci, [0064]; [0075]; [0077]),
wherein the process comprises: controlling the first electric vehicle to drive at the defined joint speed, and coordinating with the second electric vehicle to bring the second electric vehicle within a second defined distance of the first electric vehicle while the second electric vehicle is driving at the defined joint speed (see at least Ricci, [0078]),
wherein the second defined distance is shorter than the first defined distance (see at least Ricci, [0064]).
Ashby, Salter, Datta and Ricci are analogous art to claim 13 because they are in the same field of messaging to direct electric charge transfer to/from one or more battery cells and/or multi-cell battery packs of an electric vehicle. Ashby relates to methods and systems for charging electric vehicles owned or operated by different people at an electric vehicle charging facility (see Ashby, at Abstract, [0001]). Salter relates to a system for determining a pool of multiple charge providing vehicles to initiate a message instructing the providing vehicles to initiate a battery charge transfer according to transfer parameters (see Salter, at Abstract). Datta relates to a processor that stores instructions that initiate, from a vehicle, a fuel delivery request for fuel delivery by an unmanned aerial vehicle (see Datta, Abstract, [0111]). Ricci relates to modular interconnection features facilitate the modular addition or subtraction of batteries in the universal battery power system to alter a power capacity of the system (see Ricci, Abstract).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system, as disclosed in Ashby, as modified by Salter and Datta, to provide the benefit of instantiating a process for performing the emergency charging from the second electric vehicle to the first electric vehicle in response to the second electric vehicle being within a first defi