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 the RCE filed on 12/10/2025. The claims 1-5, 7- 13, & 15-16 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, see Remarks, filed 12/10/2025, with respect to the amended limitations of the independent claims 1 & 9 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the outstanding 103 rejections have been withdrawn.
However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of discovery of a new prior art Rao et al., (US 20200256684 A1, see para. 050), and its combination with prior cited arts as set forth below.
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 2 & 10 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.
Regarding claim 2, the claim recites the limitation " a predetermined number of times " in line 3. The claim 1 upon which the claim 2 depends is amended to require a claim element “a predetermined number of times”. Therefore, claim 2 fails to clarify whether these two recitations of “a predetermined number of times” corresponds to same predetermined number of times or different number of times thereby rendering the scope of the claim indefinite.
For the examination purpose, “a predetermined number of times” is interpreted as “the predetermined number of times” so that both predetermined number of times corresponds to same subject matter.
Regarding claim 10, this claim is also rejected for the similar reasons (please see claim element “a predetermined number of times” recited in claim 9 as well) as in claim 2.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 1-5, 7- 13, & 15-16 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 is reference of the record.
Regarding claim 1, You teaches a system for controlling charging of a vehicle, the system comprising: (Figs. 2, 14);
[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, 1050-2051, 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”] ([3018, 046, 054, 057, 082, 097]);
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 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 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, 4050-051, 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) modify the server of You 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 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 indeed unavailable/normal thereby addressing the problem of You (Rao, [050] & You [097]).
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 a 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 [“updates a database”] the state information of the charging station where the failure has been reported from an available state to an unavailable 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 5, You in view of Rao teaches/suggests the system of claim 1, wherein the vehicle is configured to transmit the charging station information to the server when there is the change in the distance to empty based on the charging (You [057]).
Regarding claim 7, You in view of Rao teaches/suggests the system of claim 1, wherein the server is configured to change [updating the status of the chargers based on the information received from the charge seeking vehicles] 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 (You [050, 057] & Rao [050-051]).
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 a state of the charging station where the failure has been reported is changed from an unavailable state to an available state (You [082, 096-098]).
Regarding method claims 9 -13 & 15- 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- 5 & 7- 8 respectively.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
1) Walker et al. (US 20040109061 A1) teaches a system comprising: a pluralities of the report message transmitting nodes and a server [“central server 200”] configured to receive the transmitted messages and inform one or more customer devices ([056]); and wherein the server is configured to determine [“In a second embodiment, central server 200 will contact an emergency dispatch service only if a threshold number or percentage of users have reported the emergency.”] whether the location failure report message has been received for the same location a predetermined number of times, and wherein the predetermined of times is set based on a number of reporting nodes in communication with the server ([056]).
2) Zhong et al., (US 8073934 B1) teaches wherein the server is configured to determine whether the service provider station failure report message has been received for the same service provider station a predetermined number of times, and wherein the predetermined of times is set based on a number [“detection server 126 may consider a load balancer to have failed when a threshold percentage of pingers 227 have reported a failure of that load balancer. If a sufficient threshold number of pingers 227 agree that load balancer 130 has failed, then the process proceeds to block 610”] of reporting nodes in communication with the server (Figs. 1- 2, 6, Col 11 lines 1-20).
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 “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”
2 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.
3 “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”.
4 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