DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 5 and 11 are objected to because of the following informalities: “information management method of electric vehicle charging station” should be “information management method of an electric vehicle charging station” or ““information management method of electric vehicle charging stations”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite abstract ideas which amount to mental processes and organizing human activity.
The Supreme Court’s Alice/Mayo test requires a two-part framework to determine whether a claim is eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101. In the first step, it is determined whether the claim is to a “process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter”. Claim 1 is directed to an information management method (a process) and thus the test passes the first step. Claim 11 fails the first step as described above, but even if amended to indicate that the storage medium is “non-transitory” it would still fail the rest of the test as described below.
Next, it is determined whether the claim recites a judicial exception (step 2A, prong 1, 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 54-55 (Jan. 7, 2019)), and if so, whether that judicial exception is integrated into a practical application (step 2A, prong 2, see id. at 56).
Claim 1 is directed to an information management method used in an electric vehicle charging application which takes charging station data, converts it into another form of data, receives a query and manipulates and presents the data. This could be considered a mental process, since the entire process of taking one form of data, converting it to another type of data, and then querying and presenting the data could be performed in one’s head or with a pencil and paper. Claim 6 is directed to a system for the same process described in claim 1. Claim 11 is directed to a program for the same process described in claim 1.
Essentially, claims 1, 6 and 11 describe a describes a computer implementation (“server” and “computer program”) of gathering and manipulating data (receiving data, converting, comparing data and outputting results) an idea that has been recognized by the courts as abstract in the similar cases of Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (data analysis steps recited at a level of generality that could be performed in the human mind) and Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 70, 175 USPQ 673, 676 (1972) (a process for converting binary-coded-decimal (BCD) numerals into pure binary numbers; the Court found that the claimed process had no meaningful practical application except in connection with a computer, MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Thus, claims 1, 6 and 11, indeed disclose a judicial exception. The nominal recitation of a user interface does not take the claim beyond a computer-implemented method of a mental process. Though the claim recites the data being “charging station data” this merely is a field of use for the data analysis and used to provide the routine data gathering for the system.
With respect to prong 2 of 2A, the claims must be considered as to whether they integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Again, though the claim recites “charging station data”, no physical transformation is positively recited.
The claim as recited does not improve the functioning of a computer or other technology, is not applied with a particular type of machine or computer, does not cause a transformation of matter from one state to another (charging is not positively recited) and does not apply the judicial exception in a meaningful way besides a general link to the technology of electric vehicle charging. The “server” and “user interface” are a generic computer and a generic computer peripheral to automate the process. The courts have held that use of a generic computer to automate a mental process does not amount to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application. See BASCOM Glob. Internet Servs., Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
With respect to Step 2B, the claim must be considered as to whether the claim includes additional limitations that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Claims 1, 6 and 11 fail to meet this test since the claim as a whole generally applies the concept of receiving data, converting, comparing data and outputting results and essentially taking a mental process or method or organizing human activity and “applying it” using a computer. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually.
Dependent claims 2-5 and 7-10 recite basic additional converting and data querying steps that could be performed on a generic computer. Looking at the dependent claim limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually.
Claim 11 furthermore is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter because the machine-readable storage medium covers both non-transitory tangible media and transitory propagating signals. As such, these claims are drawn to signals per se and are not directed to one of the statutory categories of invention (See MPEP 2106.01). A non-transitory computer readable storage medium that would permit the functionality of the program to be realized, would be directed to a product and be within a statutory category of invention. Since Applicant’s computer-readable storage medium covers both non-transitory tangible media and transitory propagating signals, amending the claims to add the limitation “non-transitory” would typically not raise the issue of new matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 3 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 3 and 8 recite “the first database is separate from the second database”. It is unclear what is meant by “separate” and the specification fails to shine light on the issue. It is unclear as to whether separate indicates physical separation, i.e. different drives on the server or merely logical separation, i.e. different files. Though breadth is not in itself indefiniteness, it is not clear how exactly infringement of the claim would be determined without any explanation of what is meant by “separate”.
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.
Claims 1, 4-6 and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Teske US PGPUB 2019/0383637.
Regarding claims 1 and 11, Teske discloses an information management method of electric vehicle charging station for roaming charging for use in a server coupled to a first charging station operator and a second charging station operator [fig. 1; abs.], comprising:
obtaining at least one first charging station data corresponding to the first charging station operator, wherein the first charging station data has a first data format [fig. 2, step 202 and 204; par. 3, 5, 23 & 25-26 ; data from a plurality of charging networks can be compiled at a server so that a user can conduct a query; data from each station/network can be in a different format and then standardized to a standard format based on a rules engine; thus, first station data of first operator (network) is obtained with a first format];
obtaining at least one second charging station data corresponding to the second charging station operator, wherein the second charging station data has a second data format, wherein at least a part of the first data format and the second data format is different [fig. 2, step 202 and 204; par. 3, 5, 23 & 25-26 ; data from a plurality of charging networks can be compiled at a server so that a user can conduct a query; data from each station/network can be in a different format and then standardized to a standard format based on a rules engine; thus, second station data of second operator (network) is obtained with a second format (different, “disparate”)];
receiving a charging station query request [fig 2, step 202; pars. 5, 23, 25-26, 30, & 35; an acquiring information step 202 (query) is performed, and thus received at the server interface, and parameters from each of the charging stations/networks is obtained] in response to the charging station query request, obtaining the first charging station data and the second charging station data and performing a format conversion operation on the first charging station data or the second charging station data, so that the first charging station data and the second charging station data have the same format [fig. 2, step 204; pars. 5, 23, 25-26, 30, 35, & 36; obtaining and converting charging station data to standardized codes]; and
presenting the first charging station data and the second charging station data through a user interface [fig. 2, step 210; fig. 5, steps 502 & 514; fig. 6, step 532; fig. 7, interface 700; pars. 5, 23, 25-26, 30, 35, 36, & 56; an interface 700 for a user is populated with station data].
Regarding claim 11, Teske discloses a machine-readable storage medium comprising a computer program, which, when executed, causes a device to perform an information management method of electric vehicle charging station for roaming charging [pars. 25-28, 30 and 31; instructions are executed on the server and other computers with which it interacts to carry out the program indicated above].
Regarding claims 4 and 9, Teske discloses further comprising: providing a retrieval interface by the server, wherein the retrieval interface comprises a filter to receive at least one corresponding filtering option, wherein the filtering option comprises a specific charging station operator, a specific area, a specific rate range, or a specific charging station type [fig. 8; pars. 30-34, 45, 59, & 63-64; the querying interface allows for filtering by various parameters including “charging network” and distance from a particular point (thus “specific area”)];
generating a charging station query request according to the at least one filtering option [fig. 8; pars. 30-34, 45, 59, & 63-64; a query is generated in response to the “settings” made by the user (filters)]; and
retrieving the first charging station data or the second charging station data matching the at least one filtering option according to the charging station query request by the server [figs. 8-10; pars. 63-64 & 68-69; the filtered stations are displayed on the interface (retrieved and displayed)].
Regarding claims 5 and 10, Teske discloses wherein the first data format has a plurality of first fields and the second data format has a plurality of second fields, and the method further comprises adjusting the first fields and the second fields during the format conversion operation so that the converted first charging station data and the second charging station data have the same fields [fig. 4; pars. 23, 26, & 39; different charging station types/networks have different charging features but are displayed on a standardized interface with the same fields (i.e. 1.4 kW, 3-20 kW….201-400 kW as illustrated in fig. 4, with blanks for fields that do not apply].
Regarding claim 6, Teske discloses an information management system of electric vehicle charging station for roaming charging [fig. 1; abs.], comprising:
a first charging station operator comprising at least one first charging station data, wherein the first charging station data has a first data format [fig. 2, step 202 and 204; par. 3, 5, 23 & 25-26 ; data from a plurality of charging networks can be compiled at a server so that a user can conduct a query; data from each station/network can be in a different format and then standardized to a standard format based on a rules engine; thus, first station data of first operator (network) is obtained with a first format];
a second charging station operator comprising at least one second charging station data, wherein the second charging station data has a second data format, and wherein at least a part of the first data format and the second data format is different [fig. 2, step 202 and 204; par. 3, 5, 23 & 25-26; data from a plurality of charging networks can be compiled at a server so that a user can conduct a query; data from each station/network can be in a different format and then standardized to a standard format based on a rules engine; thus, second station data of second operator (network) is obtained with a second format (different, “disparate”)]; and
a server coupled to the first charging station operator and the second charging station operator [fig. 1, server 102; par. 3, 5, 23 & 25-26; the server receives data from multiple charging networks],
obtaining the at least one first charging station data corresponding to the first charging station operator and the at least one second charging station data corresponding to the second charging station operator [fig. 2, step 202 and 204; par. 3, 5, 23 & 25-26 ; data from a plurality of charging networks can be compiled at a server so that a user can conduct a query; data from each station/network can be in a different format and then standardized to a standard format based on a rules engine; thus, second station data of second operator (network) is obtained with a second format (different, “disparate”)], receiving a charging station query request [fig 2, step 202; pars. 5, 23, 25-26, 30, & 35; an acquiring information step 202 (query) is performed, and thus received at the server interface, and parameters from each of the charging stations/networks is obtained], obtaining that first charging station data and the second charging station data in response to the charging station enquiry request, and performing a format conversion operation on the first charging station data or the second charging station data so that the first charging station data and the second charging station data have the same format [fig. 2, step 204; pars. 5, 23, 25-26, 30, 35, & 36; obtaining and converting charging station data to standardized codes] and the first charging station data and the second charging station data are presented through a user interface [fig. 2, step 210; fig. 5, steps 502 & 514; fig. 6, step 532; fig. 7, interface 700; pars. 5, 23, 25-26, 30, 35, 36, & 56; an interface 700 for a user is populated with station data].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 2-3 and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Teske US PGPUB 2019/0383637 in view of Ito et al. US PGPUB 2023/0143398.
Regarding claims 2 and 7, Teske discloses the server connects to the second charging station operator via a network to obtain the second charging station data [pars. 34-36; the server obtains data from the second charging station via a network], and the method further comprises performing the format conversion operation on the second charging station data to convert the second charging station data to a third charging station data with the first data format according to the first data format and the second data format [fig. 2, step 204; pars. 5, 23, 25-26, 30, 35, 36, & 55-56; converting charging station data to standardized codes; after first station data is converted to the standardized format, it’s format is now the standardized format, and any data for a new charging station would then be “second charging station data” converted to the first data format (the standardized format)].
Teske does not explicitly disclose wherein the server belongs to the first charging station operator.
However, Ito discloses an electric vehicle charging system wherein the server belongs to the first charging station operator [fig. 3, a server 112 belongs to a second charging operator (“company B”) and controls communication between its charging station and the wider network via site controller 110 and proprietary server 111; pars. 100-105, 107, 114, & 121].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Teske to further include wherein the server belongs to the first charging station operator for the purpose of allowing alternative EV charging operators to provide service at a charging site via their own server, as taught by Ito (pars. 24-25).
Regarding claims 3 and 8, Teske discloses wherein the server periodically connects to the second charging station operator via the network to obtain the second charging station data and stores the second charging station data in a second database corresponding to the second charging station operator in the server [claim 17; pars. 27-28 & 55; the server is periodically updated with information from the first and second charging stations, the data is stored in a database at the server (par. 5, fig. 3)], wherein the first charging station data is stored in a first database corresponding to the first charging station operator in the server, and the first database is separate from the second database [fig. 3; par. 5, 25, & 89-91; the data is divided into subsets based on queries, which can include the charging network affiliation (par. 25), at least when a query specifies only certain charging stations (i.e. of a particular charging network, par. 25 & 30) a first database (list of charging stations in the subset) and second database (not in the subset) are separate].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Wild et al US PGPUB 2015/0095233 discloses an electric vehicle charging network which uses a server to control charging networks with disparate communication protocols.
Gupta et al. US PGPUB 2022/0194254 discloses an electric vehicle charging network which uses a server to control charging networks with disparate communication protocols and displaying common information on a common interface.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID V HENZE-GONGOLA whose telephone number is (571)272-3317. The examiner can normally be reached M to F, 9am to 7pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Julian Huffman can be reached at 571-272-2147. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DAVID V HENZE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2859