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 .
This Office action is responsive to amendment filed on 05/04/2026. The claim(s) 1- 4, 8- 12, & 16 is/are pending, of which the claim(s) 1 & 9 is/are in independent form.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05-04-2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that prior cited You (US 20180202825 A1) and Rao (US 20200256684 A1) references individually or in combination fail to teach or suggest the 1amended limitations of the claims 1 & 9 that were previously presented as part of the currently cancelled dependent claims 5 & 7. Specifically, contrary to requirements for 103 rejections, applicant’s reply appears to find literal word-by-word mapping between the cited references (in You’s paras. [050] and [057] ) and claimed limitation to take the position that references fail to teach or suggest the amended and argued limitations. See Remarks, pages 6-11.
Response: Examiner respectfully disagrees.
MPEP 2144.01 states:
"[I]n considering the disclosure of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom." In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826, 159 USPQ 342, 344 (CCPA 1968) (A process for catalytically producing carbon disulfide by reacting sulfur vapor and methane in the presence of charcoal at a temperature of "about 750-830°C" was found to be met by a reference which expressly taught the same process at 700°C because the reference recognized the possibility of using temperatures greater than 750°C. The reference disclosed that catalytic processes for converting methane with sulfur vapors into carbon disulfide at temperatures greater than 750°C (albeit without charcoal) was known, and that 700°C was "much lower than had previously proved feasible."); In re Lamberti, 545 F.2d 747, 750, 192 USPQ 278, 280 (CCPA 1976) (Reference disclosure of a compound where the R-S-R' portion has "at least one methylene group attached to the sulfur atom" implies that the other R group attached to the sulfur atom can be other than methylene and therefore suggests asymmetric dialkyl moieties.).
You discloses in part:
[0050] As shown, a system can be capable of collecting charging station information from a plurality of vehicles, estimating and calculating a latent utilization rate of a charging station, and providing the latent utilization rate to at least one vehicle included in the plurality of vehicles. The system may be implemented by at least one of a network server 60, a vehicle 64 and the combination thereof. A plurality of vehicles 64 can transmit their own information about charging to the network server 60. The network server 60 can process or handle data or information delivered from the plurality of vehicles 64 to estimate or calculate a latent utilization rate regarding at least one charging station and can provide the latent utilization rate to at least one vehicle included in the plurality of vehicles 64.
[0057] The method for providing the charging station information to the vehicle may further include analyzing the charging history to recognize the number of chargers included in the at least one charging station as well as whether each of the chargers is failed. The network server 60 can receive or collect charge history from a plurality of vehicles 64. The charging history may include information of time (timings of start, end, etc.) which is required for the vehicle to be charged, information of whether charging the vehicle at a specific charger is successfully completed, information of charging station location, and the like. The network server 60 may collect information about specific chargers and specific charging stations transmitted from the plurality of vehicles 64 to determine whether the specific charger or the specific charging station operates normally or has broken down, and the like. In this way, it is possible to update the information regarding the charger and the charging station by analyzing information which is transmitted from the plurality of vehicles 64 without further information to be delivered from an organization or an entity that operates a charging station, a charger, or the like
Accordingly, You clearly teaches/suggests that its server 60 clearly collects various information sent from multiple vehicles 64 about the charging station being in “normally” operating state or “has broken down” (unavailable) state and after receiving new information in order “to update the information regarding the charger and the charging station”. Therefore, as the new information is being collected at server of the You, previously broken down/failed station information can be changed to available state when “charging the vehicle at a specific charger is successfully completed” again. While You does not explicitly disclose the argued limitations as claimed, PHOSITA would nevertheless understand that You’s disclosure to implicitly teach/cover scenarios of changing from available to unavailable and back from unavailable to available state as part of “update the information regarding the charger and the charging station”. In summary, You implicitly discloses the amended and argued limitations of the claim 1 as fully discussed below. Therefore, outstanding 103 rejection is respectfully maintained.
Note: While not relied upon but merely in the interest of compact prosecution, please note that the amended and argued features are explicitly disclosed in US 20250065768 A1 to Raguse (see, para. 0126-0127) as discussed below in pertinent art section.
“Furthermore, a corresponding check signal can be transmitted to the vehicle operator and/or the vehicle that has previously gone through the steps of the method, e.g. directly to the vehicle or indirectly via a mobile device of the vehicle operator. The check signal can contain a reference for checking the charging facility on the vehicle. In this way, the present method advantageously allows faults and/or defects on the vehicle side to be detected or the vehicle operator and/or vehicle passing through to be informed that the charging station in question is operational again and is therefore no longer reported as faulty, defective or blocked.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 1-4, 8-12, & 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over You (US 20180202825 A1, Publication Date: 2018-07-19) in view of Rao et al., (US 20200256684 A1). You and Rao are references of record.
Regarding claim 1, You teaches a system for controlling charging of a vehicle, the system comprising: (Figs. 2, 14, [050]);
[a] the vehicle [Fig. 2, one of the vehicle 64 from pluralities of the vehicles 64] configured to:
determine whether a distance to empty (DTE) thereof has changed based on the charging; and transmit [“A plurality of vehicles 64 can transmit their own information about charging to the network server 60”, wherein the information transmitted “may include a battery charging state 66…a charge history 68,…a distance to empty (DTE),… a battery charging state, and the like of the vehicle”, and wherein the history may include information of time “information of whether charging the vehicle at a specific charger is successfully completed”] a charging station failure [“broken down”] report message upon concluding that there is no change in the distance to empty ([046, 2050-3051, 057, 096]); and
[b] a server [“a network server 60”] configured to: ([050])
receive [“collect information about specific chargers and specific charging stations”] the charging station failure report message from the vehicle; change state information of a charging station where a failure [“network server 60 may collect information about specific chargers and specific charging stations transmitted from the plurality of vehicles 64 to determine whether the specific charger or the specific charging station operates normally or has broken down”] has been reported; and inform [“provide the charging availability information to at least one vehicle included in the plurality of vehicles (step 16)”] that the charging station where the failure has been reported is unavailable [“the apparatus may use different marks 2, 4 to report the failure of a charging station or a charger” and “provide the charging availability information to at least one vehicle”, “charge any vehicle due to failure, maintenance or the like, it can be displayed through a separate color or pattern 88”] ([4018, 046, 054, 057, 082, 097]);
wherein the vehicle is configured to transmit [“analyzing information which is
transmitted from the plurality of vehicles 64”, “a system can be capable of collecting charging station information from a plurality of vehicles”, “network server 60 can receive or collect charge history …whether charging the vehicle at a specific charger is successfully completed”] charging station information to the server when there is the change in the distance [the transmitted information includes charging successful which means there is change in distance to empty based on charging since vehicles were in need of charging before going to charging station] to empty based on the charging ([050, 057]),
wherein the server is configured to determine whether a charging station where
the vehicle has been charged [“charging history may include information of time (timings of start, end, etc.) which is required for the vehicle to be charged, information of whether charging the vehicle at a specific charger is successfully completed, information of charging station location, and the like”] is the charging station where the failure has been reported based on the charging station information [“system can be capable of collecting charging station information from a plurality of vehicles”, “The network server 60 can receive or collect charge history from a plurality of vehicles 64… the network server 60 may collect information about specific chargers and specific charging stations transmitted from the plurality of vehicles 64”] received from the vehicle ([050, 057]),
wherein the server is configured to change [“about specific chargers and specific charging stations transmitted from the plurality of vehicles 64 to determine whether the specific charger or the specific charging station operates normally or has broken down, and the like. In this way, it is possible to update the information regarding the charger and the charging station by analyzing information which is transmitted from the plurality of vehicles 64 without further information". Here, update the station “had broken down” based on new transmitted message from vehicles can be understood by PHOSTA as change from unavailable state to available/normal state] a state of the charging station where the failure has been reported from an unavailable state to an available state when concluding that the charging station where the vehicle has been charged is the charging station where the failure has been reported ([057]),
wherein the server is configured to receive [“network server 60 may collect information about specific chargers and specific charging stations transmitted from the plurality of vehicles 64 to determine whether the specific charger or the specific charging station operates normally or has broken down”] collect information about”] specific charging station” from the pluralities of the vehicles 64] a predetermined number [multiple vehicles 64 reporting] of times ([057]);
You teaches a server 60 configured to receive multiple failure/normal operating report messages transmitted from charge seeking vehicles 64/100 to determine whether the specific chargers or the specific charging stations operate normally or have broken down/failed (Fig. 1, [057]). You also teaches/suggests its server 60 notifying the status (“charging availability information”) of the charging stations to other vehicles 64/100 driving on the road ([0054, 097]). However, You’s server 60 does not verify the provided information (e.g., “the failure of the chargers”) to other vehicles before providing such information and hence is vulnerable to providing incorrect information to the other vehicles.
You does not teach “wherein the server is configured to determine whether the charging station failure report message has been received for the same charging station a predetermined number of times, and wherein the predetermined of times is set based on a number of vehicles in communication with the server” as claimed.
Rao relates to optimizing issues (analogous to charging stations status of You) along navigation routes reporting to a server [“networked system 102”, analogous to You’s server 60] ([014, 024], fig. 1). Specifically Rao teaches a system comprising a pluralities of the user devices to communicate with a server 102, wherein the user devices configured to: transmit pluralities of failure report messages [“reported issue”] to a server, the server to receive the transmitted issue messages and inform that there is an issue occurring to the pluralities of the other users ([032, 049]). More specifically, Rao teaches the server is configured to determine [“verifies reported issues using trace data from other users”] whether an issue report message [“other users have reported the same issue”] has been received for the same issue [“have reported the same issue at the same inferred location”] a predetermined number [“a threshold number or percentage of other users have reported the same issue”] of times, and wherein the predetermined of times is set [the word “percentage” can be understood to be set differently based on a number of vehicles in communication with the server] based on a number of vehicles in communication with the server ([042, 5050-051, 060]). Accordingly, Rao shows that the concept of verifying the received report messages by checking with a threshold percentage of the other users was already known.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to (1) combine Rao and You because they both related to a server collected reported issues from pluralities of the vehicle drivers and informing other users on the road about the issues and (2) have modified the server 60 of You to determine whether the charging station failure report message has been received for the same charging station a predetermined number of times that is set based on a number of vehicles in communication with the server to improve the accuracy of the received charging station failure report message. Doing so updating the status of the charging stations (i.e., they being unavailable/operating normally) in the server 60 and providing this information to other vehicle owners would have been only after accurately verifying that the charging stations or chargers thereof are actually unavailable/normal (Rao, [050] & You [097, 0105]).
Regarding claim 2, You in view of Rao teaches/suggests the system of claim 1, wherein the server is configured to change the state information of the charging station where the failure has been reported when the charging station failure report message is received the predetermined number of times [“threshold number or percentage of other users have reported the same issue”] or more than the predetermined number of times (You [057], Rao [050]).
Regarding claim 3, You in view of Rao teaches/suggests the system of claim 1, wherein the server is configured to change [“update” is based on “server 60 may collect information”] the state information of the charging station where the failure has been reported from the available state [“station operates normally”] to the unavailable [“station operates normally or has broken down”] state when the charging station failure report message is received (You [057] & Rao [051]).
Regarding claim 4, You in view of Rao teaches/suggests the system of claim 1, further including: a portable terminal [“the user devices 106 are portable electronic”] for transmitting the charging station failure report message to the server when a user input related to the charging station failure is received (You [050], Rao [019, 040]).
Regarding claim 8, You in view of Rao teaches/suggests the system of claim 1, wherein the server is configured to inform that the charging station where the failure has been reported is available when the state of the charging station where the failure has been reported is changed from the unavailable state to an available state (You [082, 096-098]).
Regarding method claims 9 -12 & 16, You in view of Rao teaches/suggests inventions of these method claims for the similar reasons set forth above in the system claims 1- 4 & 8 respectively.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
1) Raguse (US 20250065768 A1) teaches a system [“FIG. 1 shows a schematic representation of the interaction of the components”] for controlling charging of a vehicle with a server [items 1+ 2+ 8] comprising:
a vehicle [“an electric vehicle (5)”] is configured to transmit charging station [“the charging station (3)”] information to the server when there is the change in the distance to empty based on the charging; wherein the server is configured to determine whether a charging station where the vehicle has been charged is the charging station where the failure has been reported based on the charging station information received from the vehicle, wherein the server is configured to change a state of the charging station where the failure has been reported from an unavailable state to an available state [“the charging station in question is operational again and is therefore no longer reported as faulty”] when concluding that the charging station where the vehicle has been charged is the charging station where the failure has been reported, wherein the server is configured to determine whether the charging station failure report message has been received for the same charging station a predetermined number of times [“certain deviations are only classified as errors after this deviation occurs in several vehicles”], and wherein the predetermined of times is set based on a number of vehicles in communication with the server (Fig. 1, [0126-0127])
Contacts
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SANTOSH R. POUDEL whose telephone number is (571)272-2347. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday (8:30 am - 5:00 pm).
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, Kamini Shah can be reached at (571) 272-2279. 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.
/SANTOSH R POUDEL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2115
1 Applicant's independent claims 1 and 9 call for inventive features of the presently claimed invention, including i) transmitting, by the vehicle, charging station information to the server when there is the change in the distance to empty based on the charging, and ii) changing, by the server, a state of the charging station where the failure has been reported from an unavailable state to an available state when concluding that the charging station where the vehicle has been charged is the charging station where the failure has been reported. See Application, specification and drawings.
2 “A plurality of vehicles 64 can transmit their own information about charging to the network server 60. The network server 60 can process or handle data or information delivered from the plurality of vehicles 64”
3 The information that the plurality of vehicles 64 can transmit to the network server 60 may include a battery charging state 66 (of batteries mounted on the vehicle), a charge history 68, and the like. Further, the plurality of vehicles 64 can transmit a distance to empty (DTE), estimated or calculated based on a current driving state, a battery charging state, and the like of the vehicle, to the network server 60.
4 “a determination unit configured to analyze the charging history to determine the number of chargers included in the at least one charging station as well as whether each of the chargers is failed, wherein the information providing unit provides the latent utilization rate as well as the number of chargers and whether each of the chargers is failed”.
5 The verification module 310 determines, based on stored trace data or historical data, whether other users have reported the same issue at the same inferred location. In some embodiments, if a threshold number or percentage of other users have reported the same issue at the same inferred location, then the reported issue from the user is verified. Further still, the verification module 310 can query other users in real-time along a similar route to verify a reported issue
Prosecution Insights