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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,485,789. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,485,789 anticipates all of the limitations of instant claims 1-20, literally or in what amounts to a rewording.
Claims 1-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 18/309,381. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,485,789 anticipates all of the limitations of instant claims 1-20, literally or in what amounts to a rewording.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claims 1-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 18/309,404 (reference application) in view of Feldman et al. US PGPUB 2022/0228877. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 18/309,404 anticipate all of the limitations of instant claim 1, except for the recitation of “receiving, by a server, telemetry data from the EV”, a plurality of chargers and detecting by the server that the EV is at the charger and causing the charger to charge the EV by the server. However, Feldman discloses receiving, by a server, telemetry data from the EV, a plurality of chargers and detecting by the server that the EV is at the charger and causing the charger to charge the EV by the server [see 102 rejection of claim 1 below].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 18/309,404 to further include receiving, by a server, telemetry data from the EV, a plurality of chargers and detecting by the server that the EV is at the charger and causing the charger to charge the EV by the server for the purpose of using the system to plan charging for a plurality of chargers and plurality of vehicles by having a server, as taught by Feldman (pars. 16-17, 26-28 & 60-61).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
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 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.
Claims 1-3, 5-13 and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Feldman et al. US PGPUB 2022/0228877.
Regarding claim 1, Feldman discloses a method for improving efficiency of charging an Electric Vehicle (EV) that follows a prescribed route [abs.; fig. 2], the method comprising:
receiving, by a server, telemetry data from the EV [par. 47; a computing device, which may be a remote server receives the SOC from the vehicle (telemetry data)];
receiving, by the server, charger data from a plurality of chargers along the prescribed route [fig. 1; pars. 16-17, 26-28 & 60-61; server (i.e. database 128 or electric mobility service provider (eMSP) 102 receive data regarding various chargers 108-114, including chargers on the route (fig. 2)];
calculating, by the server, a total cost per distance (TCD) of travel over each of a plurality of route segments between the plurality of charges chargers along the prescribed route [fig. 2-3; pars. 59-64; a total cost per distance, based on the cost of charging at a particular charging station and the time/distance to reach it, is determined based on weightings for a plurality of different segments];
determining, by the server, a charging plan based on the TCD of travel over each of the plurality of route segments, the telemetry data, and the charger data [fig. 6; pars. 59-64 & 68-70; the server can determine the best route based on the route segment costs, the SOC of the vehicle (telemetry data) and charger data (i.e. which charging network the charging station belongs to “CPO”)];
detecting, by the server, that the EV is located at a particular charger among the plurality of the chargers; and in response to the detecting, causing, by the server, the particular charger to charge the EV according to the charging plan [par. 45, 47 and 50-52; the server can control charging of the EV and receive location data and control authorization of the charging by the EV at the charging station].
Regarding claim 11, Feldman discloses a system for improving efficiency of charging an Electric Vehicle (EV) that follows a prescribed route [fig. 1], the system comprising:
a communication interface; a memory; and a processor that is communicatively coupled to the communication interface and the memory [par. 47; a computing device, which may be a remote server performs the methods of figs. 6-10 (pars. 93-96 & 131); the computing device has a communications device (connection to network 1110), memory (1106) and processor 1102], wherein the processor is configured to:
receive, using the communication interface, telemetry data from the EV [par. 47; a computing device, which may be a remote server receives the SOC from the vehicle (telemetry data)];
receive, using the communication interface, charger data from a plurality of chargers along the prescribed route [fig. 1; pars. 16-17, 26-28 & 60-61; server (i.e. database 128 or electric mobility service provider (eMSP) 102 receive data regarding various chargers 108-114, including chargers on the route (fig. 2)];
calculate a total cost per distance (TCD) of travel over each of a plurality of route segments between the plurality of chargers along the prescribed route [fig. 2-3; pars. 59-64; a total cost per distance, based on the cost of charging at a particular charging station and the time/distance to reach it, is determined based on weightings for a plurality of different segments];
determine a charging plan based on the TCD of travel over each of the plurality of route segments, the telemetry data, and the charger data [fig.6; pars. 59-64 & 68-70; the server can determine the best route based on the route segment costs, the SOC of the vehicle (telemetry data) and charger data (i.e. which charging network the charging station belongs to “CPO”)];
detect, using the communication interface, that the EV is located at a particular charger among the plurality of the chargers; and in response to when the EV is being detected, cause, using the communication interface, the particular charger to charge the EV according to the charging plan [par. 45, 47 and 50-52; the server can control charging of the EV and receive location data and control authorization of the charging by the EV at the charging station].
Regarding claims 2 and 12, Feldman discloses wherein the TCD of travel over each of the plurality of route segments is calculated based on at least one of environmental conditions, charger characteristics, charging sessions, energy cost data, terrain data, or traffic data along the prescribed route [par. 59; at least cost].
Regarding claims 3 and 13, Feldman discloses wherein the terrain data includes at least one of inclination, declination, curves, speeds, stops, or traffic signals along the prescribed route [pars. 59-64; the cost data is determined as a weighted value, including actual pricing and other characteristics including user preference for highways/city streets (thus information regarding speeds, stops and traffic signals; highways having higher speeds and less stops/traffic lights)].
Regarding claims 5 and 15, Feldman discloses further comprising:
storing, by the server, characteristics of the EV in a database, wherein the characteristics of the EV include at least one of a make, model, manufacturer, age, mileage, state of repair, tire condition, tire selection or aerodynamics of the EV, wherein the TCD of travel over each of the plurality of route segments is calculated based on the characteristics of the EV [par. 46 & 60; make and model of the EV are stored and are associated with a range of the vehicle (“listed range”) which is used for the TCD calculations (pars. 59-64 & 68-70)].
Regarding claims 6 and 16, Feldman discloses wherein the charging plan is determined to minimize a total TCD over all segments of the prescribed route [par. 28],
Regarding claims 7 and 17, Feldman discloses further comprising:
storing, by the server, battery pack characteristics for the EV in a database, wherein the battery pack characteristics include make, model, manufacturer, capacity, battery aging, past battery usage, or past inter-journey battery storage state of charge of the EV, wherein the TCD of travel over each of the plurality of route segments is calculated based on the battery pack characteristics [par. 70; vehicle characteristics like battery size/capacity are stored, and used to calculate the SOC, which is in turn used to determine the TCD since the SOC and the associated range is used for the TCD calculations (pars. 59-64 & 68-70)].
Regarding claims 8 and 18, Feldman discloses wherein the charging plan is determined to maintain the EV within upper and lower state of charge thresholds as the EV traverses the prescribed route [par. 78; the route can be modified to maintain the SOC above a certain threshold, the SOC will be below the maximum threshold while driving since it discharges the battery to drive the vehicle].
Regarding claims 9 and 19, Feldman discloses wherein the charging plan is determined based on a minimum state of charge (SoC) established for the EV, wherein the minimum state of charge is established based on at least one of:
a minimum SoC to limit battery damage, a lifespan reduction, a minimum SoC required to reach a next two charging stations in a route, a minimum SoC need to complete the route without charging, a minimum SoC calculated to abort the route and to reach a depot, the SoC equals charge when the route was started, or a manually set SoC threshold [par. 78; a minimum SOC to limit battery damage].
Regarding claims 10 and 20, Feldman discloses wherein the telemetry data includes at least one of an internal temperature of the EV, external temperature, internal lighting state, external lighting state, a temperature of a battery pack, or a number of passengers in the EV [par. 70, 72 & 76; the computing device estimates the SOC via information from the vehicle regarding external temperature of the vehicle].
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 4 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feldman et al. US PGPUB 2022/0228877 in view of Hideyuki et al. WIPO Publication 2015/041366 A1.
Regarding claims 4 and 14, Feldman does not explicitly disclose further comprising: revising, by the server, the charging plan to form a revised charging plan based on an actual amount of charge delivered by the particular charger to the EV, wherein the revised charging plan is utilized by subsequent chargers along the prescribed route to charge the EV.
However, Hideyuki discloses an electric vehicle charging system which creates charging plans which revises by the server, the charging plan to form a revised charging plan based on an actual amount of charge delivered by the particular charger to the EV, wherein the revised charging plan is utilized by subsequent chargers along the prescribed route to charge the EV [fig. 4A-4B; page 15, line 12-page 16, line 9; based on the amount of power received by a vehicle at a charging station in the charging plan, the plan can be updated (fig. 4B, steps 30-32)].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Feldman to further include revising, by the server, the charging plan to form a revised charging plan based on an actual amount of charge delivered by the particular charger to the EV, wherein the revised charging plan is utilized by subsequent chargers along the prescribed route to charge the EV for the purpose of updating the plan when an actual value in the charging plan is significantly different from a planned value in the charging plan, as taught by Hideyuki (page 6, line 34-page 7, line 20).
Conclusion
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, Taelor Kim can be reached at 571-270-7166. 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-GONGOLA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2859