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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on January 20th 2023 has been considered by the examiner.
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, Step 1: The claim recites a system for scheduling charging at a selected charging station at which the overall time of the trip will be lowest. The claim is to a machine, which is a statutory category of invention.
Step 2A, Prong 1: The claim recites “in response to the battery having to be charged at a charging station during a trip for the battery to have sufficient energy for the vehicle to complete the trip” and “schedule the battery for charging during the trip at a selected charging station from among multiple charging stations in which an overall time of the trip will be lowest” which are mental observations or evaluations and fall within the “mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas set forth in the 2019 PEG. 2019 PEG Section I, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52.
Step 2A, Prong 2: Claim 1 recites a vehicle which indicates a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception and do not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: Claim 1 recites a battery, and a controller (generic computer). The additional limitations generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment and do not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
Dependent claims 2-13 fail to cure this deficiency of independent claim 1 (set forth above) and are rejected accordingly. Claims 2-14 recite limitations that represent (in addition to the limitations already noted above) either the abstract idea or an additional element that is merely extra-solution activity, mere use of instructions and/or generic computer component(s) as a tool to implement the abstract idea, and/or merely limits the abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
Claim 14, Step 1: The claim recites a system for scheduling charging at a selected charging station at which the overall time of the trip will be lowest. The claim is to a machine, which is a statutory category of invention.
Step 2A, Prong 1: The claim recites “in response to a traction battery of a vehicle having to be charged at a charging station during a vehicle trip for the traction battery to have sufficient energy for the vehicle to complete the trip” and “schedule the traction battery for charging during the vehicle trip at a selected charging station”. The claim amounts to storing and manipulating data which are mental observations or evaluations and fall within the “mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas set forth in the 2019 PEG. 2019 PEG Section I, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52.
Step 2A, Prong 2: Claim 14 recites vehicle with a traction battery which indicates a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception and do not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: Claim 14 recites a controller (generic computer). The additional limitations generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment and do not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
Dependent claims 15-17 fail to cure this deficiency of independent claim 14 (set forth above) and are rejected accordingly. Claims 15-17 recite limitations that represent (in addition to the limitations already noted above) either the abstract idea or an additional element that is merely extra-solution activity, mere use of instructions and/or generic computer component(s) as a tool to implement the abstract idea, and/or merely limits the abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
Claim 18, Step 1: The claim recites a method and its steps, and therefore is a process which is a statutory category of invention.
Step 2A, Prong 1: The claim recites a process to determine if a vehicle battery will require charging to complete a trip, and scheduling charging during the vehicle trip at a selected charging station at which an overall time of the vehicle trip is lowest. The claim amounts to storing and manipulating data which are mental observations or evaluations and fall within the “mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas set forth in the 2019 PEG. 2019 PEG Section I, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52.
Step 2A, Prong 2: Claim 18 recites vehicle having a traction battery, which indicates a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception and do not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: The claim does not recite any additional element which amount to significantly more than the recited exception. Thus, the claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101.
Dependent claims 19-20 fail to cure this deficiency of independent claim 18 (set forth above) and are rejected accordingly. Claims 19-20 recite limitations that represent (in addition to the limitations already noted above) either the abstract idea or an additional element that is merely extra-solution activity, mere use of instructions and/or generic computer component(s) as a tool to implement the abstract idea, and/or merely limits the abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3-4, 6-7, 14, 16-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Fischer et al. (US 20130345945 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Fischer teaches a vehicle (2, Fig. 2) comprising:
a battery (20)
and a controller (36) configured to, in response to the battery having to be charged at a charging station during a trip for the battery to have sufficient energy for the vehicle to complete the trip (¶[65] “If it turns out that charge state 34 is insufficient to travel the selected route (second route 12), then control device 36 checks in an availability step 52 whether charge stations 18 are available along the path to destination position 8 on the selected route”)
schedule the battery for charging during the trip at a selected charging station (¶[11-13] “In one further refinement, the method includes the following steps: calculating an arrival time at the electrical energy source; and reserving the electrical energy source for a charging period of the electrical energy store”) from among multiple charging stations (see multiple charging stations 18 in Fig. 1) in which an overall time of the trip will be lowest -(¶[16-18] “In another further refinement, the method includes the following steps: calculating an overall driving time based on the charging period and the travel time for the route. Such information not only aids the driver in planning his route more precisely”, [0062] “In the present development it should be assumed that control device 36 has selected second route 12, since it is the shortest route”. Fischer also starts by evaluating the shortest possible route first (see ¶[66] onwards)).
Regarding Claim 3, Fischer teaches the vehicle of claim 1.
Fischer further teaches wherein: the controller is further configured to, upon the battery being scheduled for charging during the trip at the selected charging station, implement a drive route for the vehicle to be driven to the selected charging station (¶[51] “A navigation device 26 sketched in FIG. 2 is able to select one of the four routes 10 through 16 and guide the driver of electric vehicle 2 across the selected route from starting position 6 to destination position 8”).
Regarding Claim 4, Fischer teaches the vehicle of claim 1.
Fischer further teaches wherein: the selected charging station (charging station 18 on route 10, Fig. 1) is closer to a destination of the trip (8) than at least another charging station of the multiple charging stations (first and second charging stations 28 on route 16) (¶[50] “The distance, the interval, or the route between charge station 18 on first route 10, to starting position 6 is shorter than on third route 14, but longer than on fourth route 16”, see ¶[66-68] for selection process of route 10).
Regarding Claim 6, Fischer teaches the vehicle of claim 1.
Fischer further teaches wherein: a distance of an origin of the trip (6, Fig. 1) to the selected charging station (charging station 18 on route 10) to a destination of the trip (8) is greater than a distance of the origin of the trip (6) to at least another charging station of the multiple charging stations (charging station 18 on route 14) to the destination of the trip (8) (the first route 10 is longer than the third route 14 as stated in ¶[49]: “In the present development it should furthermore be assumed that second route 12 between starting position 6 and destination position 8 is the shortest. In ascending order, the length of the routes then rises from third route 14 via first route 10, to fourth route 16” The motivation for taking the longer route 10 is explained in ¶[66-68])
Regarding Claim 7, Fischer teaches the vehicle of claim 1.
Fischer further teaches wherein: the controller detects the overall time of the trip that would exist with charging the battery during the trip at the selected charging station as being a summation of
(i) a drive time for driving the vehicle from an origin of the trip to the selected charging station and from the selected charging station to a destination of the trip and
(ii) a charge time for charging the battery during the trip at the selected charging station (¶[16-18] “In another further refinement, the method includes the following steps: calculating an overall driving time based on the charging period and the travel time for the route.”)
Regarding Claim 14, Fischer teaches a system comprising:
a controller (36, Fig. 2) configured to, in response to a traction battery (20) of a vehicle (2) having to be charged at a charging station (18, Fig. 1) during a vehicle trip for the traction battery to have sufficient energy for the vehicle to complete the trip (¶[65] “If it turns out that charge state 34 is insufficient to travel the selected route (second route 12), then control device 36 checks in an availability step 52 whether charge stations 18 are available along the path to destination position 8 on the selected route”),
schedule the traction battery for charging during the vehicle trip at a selected charging station (¶[11-13] “In one further refinement, the method includes the following steps: calculating an arrival time at the electrical energy source; and reserving the electrical energy source for a charging period of the electrical energy store”) from among multiple charging stations (see multiple charging stations 18 in Fig. 1) along one or more drive routes (10, 12, 14, 16, see Fig. 1) between an origin of the vehicle trip (6) and a destination of the vehicle trip (8) in which an overall time of the vehicle trip is the lowest,
the overall time being a summation of (i) a drive time for the vehicle to be driven from the origin to the selected charging station to the destination and (ii) a charge time for the traction battery to be charged during the vehicle trip at the selected charging station (¶[16-18] “In another further refinement, the method includes the following steps: calculating an overall driving time based on the charging period and the travel time for the route. Such information not only aids the driver in planning his route more precisely”, [0062] “In the present development it should be assumed that control device 36 has selected second route 12, since it is the shortest route”. Fischer also starts by evaluating the shortest possible route first (see ¶[66] onwards)).
Regarding Claim 16, Fischer teaches the system of claim 14.
Fischer further teaches wherein a distance of an origin of the vehicle trip (6, Fig. 1) to the selected charging station (charging station 18 on route 10) to a destination of the vehicle trip (8) is greater than a distance of the origin of the vehicle trip (6) to at least another charging station of the multiple charging stations (charging station 18 on route 14) to the destination of the vehicle trip (8) (the first route 10 is longer than the third route 14 as stated in ¶[49]: “In the present development it should furthermore be assumed that second route 12 between starting position 6 and destination position 8 is the shortest. In ascending order, the length of the routes then rises from third route 14 via first route 10, to fourth route 16” The motivation for taking the longer route 10 is explained in ¶[66-68])
Regarding Claim 17, Fischer teaches the system of claim 14.
Fischer further teaches wherein the selected charging station (charge station 18 on route 10, see Fig. 1) is closer to a destination of the vehicle trip (8) than at least another charging station of the multiple charging stations (first and second charging stations 18 on route 14) (¶[50] “The distance, the interval, or the route between charge station 18 on first route 10, to starting position 6 is shorter than on third route 14, but longer than on fourth route 16”, see ¶[66-68] for selection process of route 10).
Regarding Claim 18, Fischer teaches a method for a vehicle (2, Fig. 2) having a traction battery (20), the method comprising:
detecting that the traction battery will have to be charged at a charging station (18, Fig. 1) during a trip for the traction battery to have sufficient energy for the vehicle to complete the vehicle trip (¶[65] “If it turns out that charge state 34 is insufficient to travel the selected route (second route 12), then control device 36 checks in an availability step 52 whether charge stations 18 are available along the path to destination position 8 on the selected route”),
and scheduling the traction battery for charging during the vehicle trip at a selected charging station (¶[11-13] “In one further refinement, the method includes the following steps: calculating an arrival time at the electrical energy source; and reserving the electrical energy source for a charging period of the electrical energy store”) from among multiple charging stations in which an overall time of the vehicle trip is lowest (¶[16-18] “In another further refinement, the method includes the following steps: calculating an overall driving time based on the charging period and the travel time for the route. Such information not only aids the driver in planning his route more precisely”, [0062] “In the present development it should be assumed that control device 36 has selected second route 12, since it is the shortest route”. Fischer also starts by evaluating the shortest possible route first (see ¶[66] onwards)).
Regarding Claim 20, Fischer teaches the method of claim 18
Fischer further teaches implementing a drive route for the vehicle to be driven to the selected charging station (¶[51] “A navigation device 26 sketched in FIG. 2 is able to select one of the four routes 10 through 16 and guide the driver of electric vehicle 2 across the selected route from starting position 6 to destination position 8”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 2, 8-13, 15 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fischer et al. (US 20130345945 A1) in view of Imai (JP 2021009108 A).
Regarding Claim 2, Fischer teaches the vehicle of claim 1.
Fischer does not teach the controller detects that the overall time of the trip will be lowest with the battery being charged at the selected charging station based on a predicted temperature that the battery will have when being charged during the trip at the selected charging station.
Imai teaches the controller (10) detects that the overall time of the trip will be lowest with the battery being charged at the selected charging station based on a predicted temperature that the battery will have when being charged during the trip at the selected charging station (¶[6] “The estimation unit estimates the battery temperature and remaining battery capacity upon arrival at each of the found charging stations, identifies the allowable current during charging corresponding to the temperature, and estimates the charging time from the allowable current and remaining capacity” see also ¶[7] “This allows the user to compare charging times, taking into account the estimated arrival time and temperature, for multiple charging stations, and select a charging station that is more convenient for the user”).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Fischer to incorporate the teachings of Imai to modify the controller to detect that the overall time of the trip will be lowest with the battery being charged at the selected charging station based on a predicted temperature that the battery will have when being charged during the trip at the selected charging station because the temperature of the battery pack impacts the charging speed and therefore the overall time, as suggested by Imai (¶[3]), and doing so would improve the accuracy of time estimation.
Regarding Claim 8, Fischer teaches the vehicle of claim 7.
Fischer does not teach wherein: the controller is further configured to predict a temperature that the battery will have when being charged during the trip at the selected charging station;
the controller is further configured to estimate a charge rate at which the battery will be charged during the trip at the selected charging station based on the temperature that the battery will have when being charged during the trip at the selected charging station;
and the controller detects the charge time for charging the battery during the trip at the selected charging station based in part on the charge rate at which the battery will be charged during the trip at the selected charging station.
Imai teaches wherein: the controller (10) is further configured to predict a temperature that the battery will have when being charged during the trip at the selected charging station (¶[6] “The estimation unit estimates the battery temperature and remaining battery capacity upon arrival at each of the found charging stations”);
the controller (10) is further configured to estimate a charge rate at which the battery will be charged during the trip at the selected charging station based on the temperature that the battery will have when being charged during the trip at the selected charging station (continuation of ¶[6] quoted above: “identifies the allowable current during charging corresponding to the temperature”);
and the controller detects the charge time for charging the battery during the trip at the selected charging station based in part on the charge rate at which the battery will be charged during the trip at the selected charging station (continuation of ¶[6] quoted above: “estimates the charging time from the allowable current and remaining capacity”);
Regarding Claim 9, Fischer in view Imai teaches the vehicle of claim 8.
Fischer further teaches wherein: the controller is further configured to estimate a charge amount that the battery is to be charged with when being charged during the trip at the selected charging station, the charge amount being sufficient for the battery to have at least sufficient energy for the vehicle to be driven from the selected charging station to the destination;
and the controller detects the charge time for charging the battery during the trip at the selected charging station further based on the charge amount that the battery is to be charged with when being charged during the trip at the selected charging station (¶[19-20] “In one additional further refinement, the method includes: calculating the charge duration based on an electrical energy requirement for moving the vehicle between the electrical energy source and the destination” see also ¶[21] “This further refinement is based on the reasoning that the time-consuming recharging of the electric vehicle need not necessarily be concluded completely if the remaining route lying ahead does not require the full but merely a portion of the capacity of the electrical energy store. This makes it possible to reduce the charging time of the electric vehicle to a minimum, which ultimately lowers the total driving time for the vehicle”).
Regarding Claim 10, Fischer teaches the vehicle of claim 1.
Fischer does not explicitly teach the controller is further configured to estimate for each charging station the overall time of the trip that would exist with the battery being charged at that charging station to detect therefrom that the overall time of the trip is lowest with the battery being charged at the selected charging station.
Imai teaches the controller (10) is further configured to estimate for each charging station the overall time of the trip that would exist with the battery being charged at that charging station (¶[6] “The estimation unit estimates the battery temperature and remaining battery capacity upon arrival at each of the found charging stations, identifies the allowable current during charging corresponding to the temperature, and estimates the charging time from the allowable current and remaining capacity. The display unit displays the estimated arrival time and charging time for each charging station”) to detect therefrom that the overall time of the trip is lowest with the battery being charged at the selected charging station (¶[7] “the navigation device … estimates the charging time based on the allowable current and the remaining charge, and displays this together with the estimated time of arrival at the charging station. This allows the user to compare charging times, taking into account the estimated arrival time and temperature, for multiple charging stations, and select a charging station that is more convenient for the user”).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Fischer to incorporate the teachings of Imai to provide the controller is further configured to estimate for each charging station the overall time of the trip that would exist with the battery being charged at that charging station to detect therefrom that the overall time of the trip is lowest with the battery being charged at the selected charging station in order to improve convenience for the user, as suggested by Imai (¶[7]).
Regarding Claim 11, Fischer in view of Imai teaches the vehicle of claim 10.
Fischer as modified does not teach wherein: the controller estimates for each charging station the overall time of the trip that would exist with the battery being charged at that charging station based on a predicted temperature that the battery would have when being charged during the trip at that charging station.
Imai teaches wherein: the controller (10) estimates for each charging station the overall time of the trip that would exist with the battery being charged at that charging station based on a predicted temperature that the battery would have when being charged during the trip at that charging station. (¶[6] “The estimation unit estimates the battery temperature and remaining battery capacity upon arrival at each of the found charging stations, identifies the allowable current during charging corresponding to the temperature, and estimates the charging time from the allowable current and remaining capacity” see also ¶[7] “This allows the user to compare charging times, taking into account the estimated arrival time and temperature, for multiple charging stations, and select a charging station that is more convenient for the user”).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Fischer to incorporate the teachings of Imai to provide wherein: the controller estimates for each charging station the overall time of the trip that would exist with the battery being charged at that charging station based on a predicted temperature that the battery would have when being charged during the trip at that charging station because the temperature of the battery pack impacts the charging speed and therefore the overall time, as suggested by Imai (¶[3]).
Regarding Claim 12, Fischer in view of Imai teaches the vehicle of claim 10.
Fischer further teaches wherein: the controller estimates for each charging station the overall time of the trip that would exist with the battery being charged at that charging station as being a summation of
(i) a drive time for driving the vehicle from an origin of the trip to that charging station and from the that charging station to a destination of the trip and
(ii) a charge time for charging the battery during the trip at that charging station (¶[16-18] “In another further refinement, the method includes the following steps: calculating an overall driving time based on the charging period and the travel time for the route”).
Regarding Claim 13, Fischer in view of Imai teaches the vehicle of claim 12.
Imai further teaches wherein: the controller is further configured to predict for each charging station a temperature that the battery would have when being charged during the trip at that charging station (¶[6] “The estimation unit estimates the battery temperature and remaining battery capacity upon arrival at each of the found charging stations);
and the controller estimates for each charging station the charge time for charging the battery during the trip at that charging station based on the temperature that the battery would have when being charged during the trip at that charging station (¶[6] “The estimation unit … identifies the allowable current during charging corresponding to the temperature, and estimates the charging time from the allowable current and remaining capacity”)
Regarding Claim 15, Fischer teaches the system of claim 14.
Fischer does not teach wherein: the controller detects that the overall time is lowest with the traction battery being charged at the selected charging station based on a predicted temperature that the traction battery will have when being charged during the vehicle trip at the selected charging station.
Imai teaches the controller (10) detects that the overall time of the trip is lowest with the traction battery being charged at the selected charging station based on a predicted temperature that the traction battery will have when being charged during the vehicle trip at the selected charging station (¶[6] “The estimation unit estimates the battery temperature and remaining battery capacity upon arrival at each of the found charging stations, identifies the allowable current during charging corresponding to the temperature, and estimates the charging time from the allowable current and remaining capacity” see also ¶[7] “This allows the user to compare charging times, taking into account the estimated arrival time and temperature, for multiple charging stations, and select a charging station that is more convenient for the user”).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Fischer to incorporate the teachings of Imai to provide the controller detects that the overall time is lowest with the traction battery being charged at the selected charging station based on a predicted temperature that the traction battery will have when being charged during the vehicle trip at the selected charging station because the temperature of the battery pack impacts the charging speed and therefore the overall time, as suggested by Imai (¶[3]).
Regarding Claim 19, Fischer teaches the method of claim 18.
Fischer does not teach predicting, for each charging station, a temperature that the traction battery will have when being charged during the vehicle trip at that charging station;
and detecting that the overall time of the vehicle trip is lowest with the traction battery being charged at the selected charging station based on the temperature that the traction battery will have when being charged during the vehicle trip at the selected charging station.
Imai teaches predicting, for each charging station, a temperature that the traction battery will have when being charged during the vehicle trip at that charging station (¶[6] “The estimation unit estimates the battery temperature and remaining battery capacity upon arrival at each of the found charging stations);
and detecting that the overall time of the vehicle trip is lowest with the traction battery being charged at the selected charging station based on the temperature that the traction battery will have when being charged during the vehicle trip at the selected charging station (¶[6] “The estimation unit … identifies the allowable current during charging corresponding to the temperature, and estimates the charging time from the allowable current and remaining capacity” see also ¶[7] “This allows the user to compare charging times, taking into account the estimated arrival time and temperature, for multiple charging stations, and select a charging station that is more convenient for the user”).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Fischer to incorporate the teachings of Imai to predicting, for each charging station, a temperature that the traction battery will have when being charged during the vehicle trip at that charging station;
and detecting that the overall time of the vehicle trip is lowest with the traction battery being charged at the selected charging station based on the temperature that the traction battery will have when being charged during the vehicle trip at the selected charging station.
because the temperature of the battery pack impacts the charging speed and therefore the overall time, as suggested by Imai (¶[3]).
Claim(s) 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fischer et al. (US 20130345945 A1) in view of Maeda et al. (US 20210065073 A1).
Regarding Claim 5, Fischer teaches the vehicle of claim 1.
Fischer does not explicitly teach wherein: the selected charging station has a charge rate capability lower than a charge rate capability of at least another charging station of the multiple charging stations.
Maeda teaches wherein: the selected charging station (710 or 704, see Fig. 7) has a charge rate capability lower than a charge rate capability of at least another charging station of the multiple charging stations (710, ¶[119] “A second reservation selection input 706 may have a label 710 that identifies a charging entity 116 as the “Fastest” in the map area of the charging station map user interface 700. The determination that a charging selection is the quickest may be based on the charging queue or the charging speed”).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Fischer to incorporate the teachings of Maeda to provide wherein: the selected charging station has a charge rate capability lower than a charge rate capability of at least another charging station of the multiple charging stations because the user or system may prioritize other factors such as cost or nearby points of interest (POIs) even if the charging rate capability is lower at those charging stations.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AIMAN BICKIYA whose telephone number is (571)270-0555. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 - 6 PM 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, 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.
/A.B./Examiner, Art Unit 2859
/JULIAN D HUFFMAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2859