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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The IDS filed 4/5/2023 has been considered and placed of record. The initialed copy is attached herewith.
Drawings
New sheets of drawings to figures 2-17 filed 4/28/2023 have been made of record.
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, 9-11, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by DeLuca et al. (US 2020/0217679). Note: each apparatus claim has a related method claim performing the apparatus structures. These related claims are grouped together in the claim analysis.
Re claims 1 and 11, the reference discloses a device 134 for recommending a charging station, the device comprising: a data collection device for collecting real-time information of a plurality of charging stations (para 33), real-time information of at least one vehicle related to the plurality of charging stations (para 19), and real-time information related to external environmental factors based on a specified period (end of para 41); a data storage device 114 for updating and storing the real- time information of the plurality of charging stations, the real-time information of the at least one vehicle, and the real-time information related to the external environmental factors based on the specified period (para 22-23); a data processing device for generating processing information for selecting some of the plurality of charging stations based on the real-time information of the plurality of charging stations, the real-time information of the at least one vehicle, and the real-time information related to the external environmental factors (para 41); and a data application device for generating a charging station list for recommending charging stations among the plurality of charging stations to an ego vehicle based on at least some of the processing information generated by the data processing device (para 41).
Re claims 9 and 19, the reference further discloses determine, when a destination of the ego vehicle is set, whether the destination is reachable based on data of the ego vehicle and the real-time information related to the external environmental factors (para 42); and provide the charging station list including at least one optimal charging station to the ego vehicle upon determining that the destination is not reachable (para 42-43), wherein the data of the ego vehicle includes at least one of location information of the ego vehicle, a state of charge (SoC) of a battery, a distance to empty (DTE), a state of charge of a hydrogen storage tank, an estimated distance for the hydrogen storage tank to empty, or any combination thereof (para 48).
Re claims 10 and 20, the reference further discloses calculate expected congestion levels of the plurality of charging stations using the real-time information of the plurality of charging stations and the real-time information of the at least one vehicle related to the plurality of charging stations (mid para 41: crowdedness); and generate the processing information further based on the expected congestion levels (mid para 41), wherein the real-time information of the plurality of charging stations includes at least one of location information, a type of a charger, nearby amenity information, charging fee information, operating hours, information on a vehicle being charged, information on a vehicle scheduled to be charged, daily average charging time information, or any combination thereof (para 24, 36, 48-50; (para 23: Tesla map includes charging fee, parking fee ect.)), wherein the real-time information of the at least one vehicle includes at least one of an estimated time of arrival to a charging station, an expected charging end time, an expected time required for charging, or any combination thereof (para 36).
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.
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 2-8 and 12-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DeLuca et al. (US 2020/0217679). Note: each apparatus claim has a related method claim performing the apparatus structures. These related claims are grouped together in the claim analysis.
Re claims 2 and 12, the reference further discloses identify an outside air temperature of a region including a travel route of the ego vehicle among the real-time information related to the external environmental factors (end of para 41); versed in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have assigned the different temperature range for each region since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
Re claims 3 and 13, the reference further discloses last line of para 41). The reference does not disclose the indoor station is in the third region. It would have been well within the skill of one versed in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have assigned the indoor station to any region including the third region since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art.
Re claims 4 and 14, the reference does not specifically disclose outside wind speed in the travel route and the different wind speed region (similar to the temperature regions). Regarding the wind speed scenario, official notice is taken of the fact that a real-time weather update report would include snapshots of atmospheric conditions such as wind, temperature and precipitation. Therefore, it would have been well within the skill of one versed in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have pulled the wind condition from a weather update report, disclosed by the reference, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known materiale on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. Regarding the different wind speed regions, official notice is taken of the fact that classifying regions with different wind speeds would allow for the ego vehicle to prep the battery for charging when it reaches the charging station. Therefore, it would have been well within the skill of one versed in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have divided the regions with different wind speed range to allow the ego vehicle to maximize charging. In addition, it would also have been well within the skill of one versed in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have assigned the different wind speed range for each region since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
Re claims 5 and 15, the reference further discloses end of para 41). The reference does not disclose identifying a charging station in each of the wind speed region and the temperature region. Official notice is taken of the fact that there would be at least one charging station in each of the wind speed/temperature region due to the multiplicity of charging stations in geofence of the ego vehicle based on its SOC. Therefore, it would have been well within the skill of one versed in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have found charging stations in each of the wind speed/temperature regions since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device (i.e. charging stations in all regions) involves only routine skill in the art.
Re claims 6 and 16, the reference discloses identify remaining charging stations other than the at least one first charging station, the at least one second charging station, and the at least one third charging station among the plurality of charging stations (para 23); identify at least one fourth charging station among the remaining charging stations based on at least one of a charging station preference of a driver, a charging fee, a parking fee, the real-time information of the plurality of charging stations, or any combination thereof; and generate the processing information further including the at least one fourth charging station (para 38).
Re claims 7 and 17, the reference discloses end of para 41: the recommended module 134 then prioritize indoor location over an outdoor location). The reference does not group the charging stations based on the weather at the stations. Official notice is taken of the fact that grouping stations based on the weather would allow for the ego vehicle to prep the battery for charging when it reaches the charging station. Therefore, it would have been well within the skill of one versed in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have grouped the charging stations based on the weather to allow the ego vehicle to maximize charging.
Re claims 8 and 18, the reference discloses classify charging stations with the weather near the charging station corresponding to a first weather including end of para 41). However, the reference is silent on the weather condition being snow, hail or typhoon and does not disclose the classification of stations in these weather conditions being the first group and the stations not having inclement weather being in a second group. Official notice is taken of the fact that snow, typhoon and hail are snapshots of atmospheric conditions. It would have been well within the skill of one versed in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have included these atmospheric conditions together with the rain to ensure the driver is safe on the road and at an impacted charging station. Regarding assigning these stations into a particular group, it would have been well within the skill of one versed in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have grouped charging stations in inclement weather together and grouped charging stations not in inclement weather together since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Art made of record exemplified recommended list of charging stations based on known criteria.
Any inquiry concerning this communication should be directed to the Examiner at the below-listed number. The Examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Thu from 7:00am-5:00pm.
The Examiner’s SPE is Taelor Kim and he can be reached at 571.270.7166. The fax number for the organization where this application is assigned is 571.273.8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866.217.9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800.786.9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571.272.1000.
/EDWARD TSO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2859 571.272.2087