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 .
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.
1. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claims do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (an abstract idea) without significantly more and are thus, ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Step 2A-Prong One: Judicial Exception
The claims are directed to collecting, analyzing, and transmitting information relating to the pliability of a charging cable, and adjusting or using such data to provide directions to a charging station.
The claims recite:
Transmitting to a charger…data that is a basis for adjusting pliability of a charging cable – collecting data
…where the data includes a requested level of pliability, and where requested level of pliability of charging cable is generated by the controller based on one ore more physical attributes of a user – analyzing data
Commanding the charging station to provide charge cable pliability based on the transmitted data by heating the charging cable -data processing
Such steps describe data gathering, evaluation, and communication – activities that can be performed in the human mind or using pen and paper. Heating the cable is a physical action, but its triggered based on data processing. These are examples of abstract ideas, including mental processes and methods of organizing human activity.
Accordingly, the claims recite a judicial exception.
Step 2A – Prong Two: Integration Into a Practical Application
The claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Although the claims recite a “controller,” “transmitting device,” “sensors,” and a “charging cable,” these are elements described at a high level of generality and are used merely to perform generic computer and data communication functions (eg transmitting, determining, requesting). The claims do not include any specific technical mechanism for how the cable’s pliability is adjusted, how human attributes affect that adjustment, or how the navigation system functionally improves operation of the vehicle or charger.
The recited elements therefore do not impose a meaningful limit on the abstract idea beyond generally linking it to a technological environment.
The recited elements fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B-Inventive Concept
Under Step 2B he claims do not include additional elements that amount to “significantly more” than the judicial exception itself.
The additional elements-namely a generic controller, transmitting device, and sensors-are well understood, routine, and conventional components performing their ordinary functions (eg processing and transmitting data). There is no indication in the specification that these components operate in an unconventional manner, are arranged in a non-routine configuration, or effect any improvement in the functioning of the vehicle, charging system, or computer technology.
The mere automation of human decision-making using generic vehicle electronics does not constitute an inventive concept.
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 1 – 20 are 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.
Indefinite Terms and Phrases
The following claim terms and phrases render the scope of the invention unclear:
“Data that is a basis for adjusting pliability”- it is unclear what qualifies as a “basis,” how such data is used, or whether the adjustment occurs within the claimed system or externally.
Method claims 10-20 recite “providing direction via a navigation system in response to one ore more charging cable pliability estimates.” The relationship between “pliability estimates” and “directions” is unclear-specifically, how or why pliability affects navigation instructions.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 1, 4 – 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Atlasman (US 20240100976) in view Orbay (US 20220404435).
Regarding claim 1, Atlasman teaches a vehicle system (shown in figure 2),
comprising: a transmitting device (shown in figure 7 item 750 defined in paragraph [0028] as a communication circuit via an electronic device);
a controller including executable instructions that cause the controller to transmit to a charger, via the transmitting device (paragraph [0026] teaches wherein the user provides information via a controller interpreted as a processing circuit item 710 via the transmitting device, an electronic device),
data that is a basis for adjusting pliability of a charging cable at a charging station of the charger (paragraph [0026] teaches wherein the user provides information to the charger. When charging is complete or almost complete, liquid coolant is pumped out of the channels to reduce the weight of the charging cable and increase the pliability or flexibility of the cable. The charger completes the charging, then adjusts, or increases the flexibility of the charging cable by removing the liquid coolant. The charger receives information from the user, about the charging process (ie when to complete the charging) from this information, the flexibility is adjusted)
at a charging station of the charger where the data includes a requested where the data includes a requested level of pliability, and where the requested level of pliability of the charging cable is generated by the controller and command the charging station to provide a charge cable pliability based on the transmitted data by heating the charging cable (paragraphs [0026] discloses wherein the user provides information to and receives information from the charger. Paragraphs [0088] – [0089] teaches wherein the temperature of the charging cable is adjust to a desired temperature range. This desired temperature range may be requested or adjusted by the operation user. As disclosed in paragraph [0026] when the coolant is removed, thus the temperature in charging cable increases, and flexibility in the charging cable increases. The information provided to the charger, provides a command to the charger to stop charging and remove the coolant and increase the flexibility. Thus, the information provided to the charger is a command to provide charger )
Atlasman does not explicitly teach based on one or more physical attributes of a user
Orbay teaches further comprising based on one or more physical attributes of a user (defined in paragraph [0018] wherein a first sensor senses human attributes, defined as user behaviors or user preferences. The data which is determine is a value attributed to a human. Paragraphs [0011] and [0012] teaches wherein determining the pliability of the charging cable is interpreted as determining the flexibility or tensile strength of the cable. Paragraph [0018] teaches wherein a dynamic measurement is determined as a request level since the user provides his preferences for interacting with the charge cable. Paragraph [0024] teaches wherein a pliability, flexibility or tensile strength is determined based on values determined from monitoring and predicting the user’s preferences ).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the charging system of the Atlasman reference with the charging system of the Orbay reference so that the charging cable wear and tear may be reduced.
The suggestion/motivation for combination can be found in the Orbay reference in paragraph [0003] wherein damage due to wear and tear is prevented.
PNG
media_image1.png
267
653
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Atlasman teaches a vehicle charging system which adjusts the pliability or flexibility of a charging cable item 140
PNG
media_image2.png
506
594
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Orbay Figure 1 shows a cable condition monitoring system which adjusts based on human attributes or user behavior and interaction
Regarding claim 4, Atlasman teaches the vehicle system of claim 1, but does not explicitly teach further comprising sensors to sense the one or more physical attributes of the user.
Orbay teach further comprising sensors to sense the one or more physical attributes of the user (defined in paragraph [0018] wherein a first sensor senses human attributes, defined as user behaviors or user preferences).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the charging system of the Atlasman reference with the charging system of the reference so that Orbay system so that the charging cable wear and tear may be reduced.
The suggestion/motivation for combination can be found in the Orbay reference in paragraph [0003] wherein damage due to wear and tear is prevented.
Regarding claim 5, Atlasman teaches the vehicle system of claim 4, but does not explicitly teach further comprising additional executable instructions that cause the controller to generate a value for charging cable pliability based on the one or more physical attributes of the user.
Orbay teaches further comprising additional executable instructions that cause the controller to generate a value for charging cable pliability based on the one or more physical attributes of the user (paragraphs [0010] –[0011] teaches wherein pliability is determined by a sensor determining the user’s attributes such as a user’s behavior. Paragraph [0024] teaches wherein a controller, interpreted as a control unit, includes executable instructions that generates values from a first and second sensor, which monitors the human attributes and the aging of the charging cable, which may also determine the pliability or tensile strength of the charging cable).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the charging system of the Atlasman reference with the charging system of the reference so that Orbay system so that the charging cable wear and tear may be reduced.
The suggestion/motivation for combination can be found in the Orbay reference in paragraph [0003] wherein damage due to wear and tear is prevented.
Regarding claim 6, Atlasman teaches the vehicle system of claim 5, where the value is included in the data (paragraph [0026] teaches wherein a user requests or provides and receives values or information from the charger to increase the flexibility of the electrical cable).
Regarding claim 7, Atlasman teaches the vehicle system of claim 1, further comprising additional executable instructions to transmit a request for data from one or more charging stations (paragraph [0026] teaches wherein the charger requests information my transmitting and receiving information to and from the user).
Regarding claim 8, Atlasman teaches the vehicle system of claim 7, but does not explicitly teach where the data includes usage data for the one or more charging stations.
Orbay teaches wherein the data includes usage data for the one or more charging stations (defined in paragraph [0018] wherein the data determined is usage patterns of the charging station).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the charging system of the Atlasman reference with the charging system of the reference so that Orbay system so that the charging cable wear and tear may be reduced.
The suggestion/motivation for combination can be found in the Orbay reference in paragraph [0003] wherein damage due to wear and tear is prevented.
Regarding claim 9, Atlasman teaches the vehicle system of claim 8, where the usage data includes time since most recently not supplying charge to a vehicle (defined in paragraph [0099] wherein the time of not supplying charging is determined when the termination of charging is determined).
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Atlasman (US 20240100976) in view Orbay (US 20220404435) as applied to claim 1 and in further view of Cao (US 20190001830).
Regarding claim 2, Atlasman and Orbay teaches the vehicle system of claim 1, but does not explicitly teach where the one or more physical attributes of a user include one or more of age, gender, height, weight, and disabilities.
Cao teaches wherein the one or more physical attributes of a user include one or more of age, gender, height, weight, and disabilities (paragraph [0021] teaches vehicle charging station wherein a user may provide personal attributes to a user interface for user-defined settings such as age and gender).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the charging system of the Atlasman and Orbay reference with the charging system of the Cao reference so that the costs and time of setting up vehicle charging is minimized and more efficient recharging service is provided.
The suggestion/motivation for combination can be found in the Cao reference in paragraph [0016] wherein damage due to wear and tear is prevented.
Regarding claim 3, Atlasman teaches The vehicle system of claim 2, further comprising additional executable instructions that cause the controller to assign a first value to one of the one or more physical attributes of the user and transmit the requested level of pliability of the charging cable to a charging station, where the requested level of pliability of the charging cable is based on the first value.
Orbay teaches additional executable instructions that cause the controller to assign a first value to one of the one or more physical attributes of the user and transmit the requested level of pliability of the charging cable to a charging station, (defined in paragraph [0018] wherein a first sensor senses human attributes, defined as user behaviors or user preferences. The data which is determine is a value attributed to a human)
where the requested level of pliability of the charging cable is based on the first value (Paragraphs [0011] and [0012] teaches wherein determining the pliability of the charging cable is interpreted as determining the flexibility or tensile strength of the cable. Paragraph [0018] teaches wherein a dynamic measurement is determined as a request level since the user provides his preferences for interacting with the charge cable. Paragraph [0024] teaches wherein a pliability, flexibility or tensile strength is determined based on values determined from monitoring and predicting the user’s preferences ).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the charging system of the Atlasman reference with the charging system of the reference so that Orbay system so that the charging cable wear and tear may be reduced.
The suggestion/motivation for combination can be found in the Orbay reference in paragraph [0003] wherein damage due to wear and tear is prevented.
Claims 10-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Atlasman (US 20240100976) in view Neligan (US 20230110777) and in further view of Reber (US 20190217707).
Regarding claim 10, Atlasman teaches a vehicle operating method comprising: providing to a user in response to one or more charging cable pliability estimates, control of the charging cable’s temperature (Atlasman teaches in paragraph [0004] increasing the temperature of the charging cable by draining the coolant, thus decreasing the weight and increasing the pliability or flexibility. Atlasman further teaches that the user may request use of charger connector, and in response, the system adjusts the weight of the charging cable according to the user’s request)
Altasman however does not explicitly teach directions to a charging station via a navigation system based on charging pliability estimates.
Neligan teaches directions via a navigation system that provides directions to a charging station based on various charging related estimates or parameters (defined in paragraph [0038] wherein a navigation system that directs a vehicle to a charging station based on user-defined estimates, preferences, or characteristics, and that reservations may be made based on such determined estimates. Although Neligan does not explicitly teach “pliability estimates,” Neligan teaches determining charging station suitability based on the ability of the station to provide a specific battery temperature. The battery temperature is adjusted by a medium flowing through the charging cable, and in some embodiments, the system preconditions the charging cable by heating it, thereby increasing the cable’s flexibility or pliability for use by the driver);
and informing the charging station of the arrival time of the user to enable pre-adjustment of the charging cable (paragraph [0040] teaches wherein the charger is notified of the vehicle’s arrival in advance to enable a pre-adjustment of the charging cable).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the Atlasman system to incorporate Neligan’s navigation-based direction functionality, such that the vehicle’s navigation system provides directions based on charging cable pliability estimates, to prevent damage to the charging station and cable. The motivation for such a combination would have been to improve user convenience and optimize the vehicle’s charging process by directing the user to a charging station that accommodates desired charging cable conditions (eg temperature and pliability) as suggest by Neligan.
The suggestion/motivation for combination can be found in the Neligan reference in paragraph [0038] wherein the navigation based on temperature of the charging station improves user convenience.
Atlasman and Neligan do not explicitly teach commanding the charging station to provide a charge cable pliability based on the one or more charging cable pliability estimates by heating the charging cable before an arrival time of the user.
Reber teaches commanding the charging station to provide a charge cable pliability based on the one or more charging cable pliability estimates by heating the charging cable before an arrival time of the user (defined in paragraphs [0022], [0033], and [0075] wherein the charging cable is heated before arrival or pre-heated before use to adjust the flexibility or pliability of the charging cable).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the charging system of the Atlasman and Neligan references with the charging cable system of the Reber reference so that the handling of a charging cable is improved and to prevent the charging plug from becoming frozen fast in the charging socket.
The suggestion/motivation for combination can be found in the Reber reference in paragraph [0022] handling of the charging cable is improved.
PNG
media_image3.png
534
740
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Neligan figure 1 shows a preconditioning and preheating vehicle charging system which warms up a charging cable before charging
Regarding claim 11, Atlasman teaches the vehicle operating method of claim 10, where the one or more charging cable plyability estimates are generated via a controller of a vehicle (paragraph [0033] teaches wherein a controller, interpreted as a control unit item 1010 within the vehicle item 200 which communicates information to the charger).
Regarding claim 12, Atlasman teaches the vehicle operating method of claim 10, where the one or more charging cable pliability estimates are generated via a controller external to a vehicle (paragraph [0027] teaches wherein a controller, interpreted as a control unit item 710, external to the vehicle, within the charger determines pliability estimates with sensor such as a pressure sensor item 742 to determine when the coolant should be evacuated from the charging cable, thus increasing the temperature and decreasing the weight for use).
Regarding claim 13, Atlasman teaches the vehicle operating method of claim 10, further comprising requesting an adjustment to pliability of a charging cable via a controller of a vehicle (paragraph [0033] teaches wherein a controller, interpreted as a control unit item 1010 within the vehicle item 200 which communicates information to the charger. Paragraph [0090] teaches wherein the vehicle requests a termination of charge, which actives adjusting the pliability, by removing the coolant from the charging cable to allow the driver to manipulate the charging cable). .
Regarding claim 14, Atlasman teaches the vehicle operating method of claim 13, where requesting the adjustment to the pliability of the charging cable includes transmitting a request to increase the pliability of the charging cable (paragraph [0033] teaches wherein a controller, interpreted as a control unit item 1010 within the vehicle item 200 which communicates information to the charger. Paragraph [0090] teaches wherein the vehicle requests a termination of charge, which actives adjusting the pliability, by removing the coolant from the charging cable to allow the driver to manipulate the charging cable).
Regarding claim 15, Atlasman teaches the vehicle operating method of claim 10, but does not explicitly teach where the directions are to a charging station.
Neligan teaches directions via a navigation system that provides directions to a charging station based on various charging related estimates or parameters (defined in paragraph [0038] wherein a navigation system that directs a vehicle to a charging station based on user-defined estimates, preferences, or characteristics, and that reservations may be made based on such determined estimates).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the Atlasman system to incorporate Neligan’s navigation-based direction functionality, such that the vehicle’s navigation system provides directions based on charging cable pliability estimates, to prevent damage to the charging station and cable. The motivation for such a combination would have been to improve user convenience and optimize the vehicle’s charging process by directing the user to a charging station that accommodates desired charging cable conditions (eg temperature and pliability) as suggest by Neligan.
The suggestion/motivation for combination can be found in the Neligan reference in paragraph [0038] wherein the navigation based on temperature of the charging station improves user convenience.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Atlasman (US 20240100976) in view Orbay (US 20220404435) and in further view of Reber (US 20190217707).
Regarding claim 16, Atlasman teaches a vehicle method (shown in figure 2),
comprising: via a controller, transmitting (shown in figure 7 item 750 defined in paragraph [0028] as a communication circuit via an electronic device);
a controller including executable instructions that cause the controller to transmit to a charger, via the transmitting device (paragraph [0026] teaches wherein the user provides information via a controller interpreted as a processing circuit item 710 via the transmitting device, an electronic device),
data that is a basis for adjusting pliability of a charging cable at a charging station of the charger (paragraph [0026] teaches wherein information is provided to reduce the weight of the charging cable and increase the pliability or flexibility of the cable)
where the controller generates a pliability request value; and commanding the charging station to provide a charge cable pliability (paragraphs [0026] discloses wherein the user provides information to and receives information from the charger. Paragraphs [0088] – [0089] teaches wherein the temperature of the charging cable is adjust to a desired temperature range)
Atlasman does not explicitly teach based on one or more physical attributes of a user; based on the pliability request value by heating the charging cable before an arrival time of the user.
Orbay teaches further comprising based on one or more physical attributes of a user (defined in paragraph [0018] wherein a first sensor senses human attributes, defined as user behaviors or user preferences. The data which is determine is a value attributed to a human. Paragraphs [0011] and [0012] teaches wherein determining the pliability of the charging cable is interpreted as determining the flexibility or tensile strength of the cable. Paragraph [0018] teaches wherein a dynamic measurement is determined as a request level since the user provides his preferences for interacting with the charge cable. Paragraph [0024] teaches wherein a pliability, flexibility or tensile strength is determined based on values determined from monitoring and predicting the user’s preferences ).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the charging system of the Atlasman reference with the charging system of the reference so that Orbay system so that the charging cable wear and tear may be reduced.
The suggestion/motivation for combination can be found in the Orbay reference in paragraph [0003] wherein damage due to wear and tear is prevented.
Atlasman and Orbay do not explicitly teach wherein heating the charging cable before an arrival time of the user.
Reber teaches commanding the charging station to provide a charge cable pliability based on the one or more charging cable pliability estimates by heating the charging cable before an arrival time of the user (defined in paragraphs [0022], [0033], and [0075] wherein the charging cable is heated before arrival or pre-heated before use to adjust the flexibility or pliability of the charging cable).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the charging system of the Atlasman and Neligan references with the charging cable system of the Reber reference so that the handling of a charging cable is improved and to prevent the charging plug from becoming frozen fast in the charging socket.
The suggestion/motivation for combination can be found in the Reber reference in paragraph [0022] handling of the charging cable is improved.
3. Claim 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Atlasman (US 20240100976) in view Orbay (US 20220404435) as applied to claim 16 and in further view of Cao (US 20190001830).
Regarding claim 17, Atlasman and Orbay teaches the vehicle operating method of claim 16, but does not explicitly teach where the one or more physical attributes of a user include one or more of age, gender, height, weight, and disabilities.
Cao teaches wherein the one or more physical attributes of a user include one or more of age, gender, height, weight, and disabilities (paragraph [0021] teaches vehicle charging station wherein a user may provide personal attributes to a user interface for user-defined settings such as age and gender).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the charging system of the Atlasman and Orbay reference with the charging system of the Cao reference so that the costs and time of setting up vehicle charging is minimized and more efficient recharging service is provided.
The suggestion/motivation for combination can be found in the Cao reference in paragraph [0016] wherein damage due to wear and tear is prevented.
Regarding claim 18, Atlasman teaches the vehicle operating method of claim 17, where the one or more physical attributes of the user are determined via vehicle sensors.
Orbay teaches where the one or more physical attributes of the user are determined via vehicle sensors (paragraphs [0010] –[0011] teaches wherein pliability is determined by a sensor determining the user’s attributes such as a user’s behavior. Paragraph [0024] teaches wherein a controller, interpreted as a control unit, includes executable instructions that generates values from a first and second sensor, which monitors the human attributes and the aging of the charging cable, which may also determine the pliability or tensile strength of the charging cable. Paragraph [0026] teaches wherein the sensor may be located on the vehicle).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the charging system of the Atlasman reference with the charging system of the reference so that Orbay system so that the charging cable wear and tear may be reduced.
The suggestion/motivation for combination can be found in the Orbay reference in paragraph [0003] wherein damage due to wear and tear is prevented.
Claims 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Atlasman (US 20240100976) in view Orbay (US 20220404435) as applied to claim 16 and in further view of Neligan (US 20230110777).
Regarding claim 19, Atlasman teaches the vehicle operating method of claim 16, further comprising providing a response to one or more charging cable pliability estimates (Atlasman teaches in paragraph [0004] increasing the temperature of the charging cable by draining the coolant, thus decreasing the weight and increasing the pliability or flexibility. Atlasman further teaches that the user may request use of charger connector, and in response, the system adjusts the weight of the charging cable according to the user’s request)
Altasman in view of Orbay however do not explicitly teach the providing directions via a navigation system.
Neligan teaches providing directions via a navigation system (defined in paragraph [0038] wherein a navigation system that directs a vehicle to a charging station based on user-defined estimates, preferences, or characteristics, and that reservations may be made based on such determined estimates. Although Neligan does not explicitly teach “pliability estimates,” Neligan teaches determining charging station suitability based on the ability of the station to provide a specific battery temperature. The battery temperature is adjusted by a medium flowing through the charging cable, and in some embodiments, the system preconditions the charging cable by heating it, thereby increasing the cable’s flexibility or pliability for use by the driver).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the Atlasman in view of Orbay system to incorporate Neligan’s navigation-based direction functionality, such that the vehicle’s navigation system provides directions based on charging cable pliability estimates, to prevent damage to the charging station and cable. The motivation for such a combination would have been to improve user convenience and optimize the vehicle’s charging process by directing the user to a charging station that accommodates desired charging cable conditions (eg temperature and pliability) as suggest by Neligan.
The suggestion/motivation for combination can be found in the Neligan reference in paragraph [0038] wherein the navigation based on temperature of the charging station improves user convenience.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Atlasman (US 20240100976) in view Orbay (US 20220404435) in view of Reber (US 20190217707) and in further view Neligan (US 20230110777).
Regarding claim 20, Atlasman, Orbay and Reber teaches the vehicle operating method of claim 19, but does not explicitly teach where the directions are to a charging station.
Neligan teaches directions via a navigation system that provides directions to a charging station based on various charging related estimates or parameters (defined in paragraph [0038] wherein a navigation system that directs a vehicle to a charging station based on user-defined estimates, preferences, or characteristics, and that reservations may be made based on such determined estimates).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the Atlasman, Orbay and Reber system to incorporate Neligan’s navigation-based direction functionality, such that the vehicle’s navigation system provides directions based on charging cable pliability estimates, to prevent damage to the charging station and cable. The motivation for such a combination would have been to improve user convenience and optimize the vehicle’s charging process by directing the user to a charging station that accommodates desired charging cable conditions (eg temperature and pliability) as suggest by Neligan.
The suggestion/motivation for combination can be found in the Neligan reference in paragraph [0038] wherein the navigation based on temperature of the charging station improves user convenience.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/21/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the Rejection under 35 §101, the applicant argues that the amended claims now recite, “command the charging station to provide a charge cable pliability based on the transmitted data by heating the charging cable.”
Step 2A - Prong One: Judicial exception
The core steps of claim 1 are:
collecting data about a user (age, gender, height, weight disabilities)
generating a requested cable pliability level based on the data
transmitting the request
commanding the charging cable to adjust the station
These steps are simply: collecting data, analyzing data and sending a command, which falls into the Abstract Idea categories of:
Mental Processes
Data Analysis
Information Processing
Step 2A-Prong Two: Practical Application
The amended claim 1 includes the limitation, “…provide a charge cable pliability…by heating the charging cable.” The claim is merely applying the Abstract Idea to conventional hardware. The heating is a result of a decision based on data analysis and does not provide a technological improvement. The claim does not specify:
how the cable is heated
a new, nonobvious cable design
a new heating mechanism
how heating changes the pliability in a novel way.
Therefore, the claim does not integrate the Abstract Idea into a Practical Application.
Step 2B: Inventive Concept
The additional elements include:
a controller
a transmitting device
sensors
heating the cable
These appear to be generic components performing conventional functions. Thus, there is no Inventive Concept.
Regarding the Rejection under 35 U.S.C. §103
The applicant argues that the Atlasman reference does not teach “data that is a basis for adjusting pliability of a charging cable.
The claims do not require the data to directly control the pliability adjustment, rather they only require the data to be a basis for adjusting pliability. The Atlasman reference teaches that a user provides charging-related information to the charger, which the charger uses to control operation of the charging process, including determining when charging is completed. The reference further teaches that upon completion of charging, coolant is drained from the charging cable, which reduces the cable’s weight and increases its flexibility. Accordingly because the user-provided data forms a basis for the charging operation that results in draining the coolant and increasing cable flexibility, the reference teaches data that is a basis for adjusting pliability as recited in the claims.
The applicant argues that the Atlasman in view of Orbay reference does not explicitly teach “user’s physical attributes.” The Orbay reference teaches determining physical attributes, interpreted as user behaviors. Since Orbay measures the strain results from a user’s physical interaction with the cable, the generated data necessarily reflects physical attributes of the user.
The applicant argues that the Neligan system does not explicitly teach or suggest, providing directions to a charging station based on charging cable pliability estimates. This is not persuasive. The Neligan reference teaches providing navigation guidance to a charging station based on charging related operating conditions, such as battery temperature used to optimize the charging process. Because the navigation system directs the user to the charging station based on charging parameters associated with operation of the charging system, the reference teaches providing directions in response to charging-condition data. Thus, it would have been obvious to use other charging-related parameters, such as pliability estimates, as taught in the Atlasman reference, to provide navigation directions to a charging station.
The applicant argues that the Atlasman, Orbay and Neligan references do not teach “commanding the charging station to provide charge cable pliability based on the pliability request” or “where the controller generates a pliability request based on the one or more physical attributes of the user. This is not persuasive. The claims do not require any specific mechanism by which the cable is heated or a particular causal relationship between the user attributes and the heating. The Atlasman reference teaches evacuating coolant from the charging cable, which results in the cable becoming warmer and more flexible, thereby increasing pliability.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Us 20160059718 A1 Vehicle Power Device Adachi; Masakazu Et Al.
Us 20210155105 A1 Cord Reel Thermal Management Alford; John Et Al.
Us 20230042880 A1 Charging Cord Designs Baumbick; James Et Al.
Us 20200303093 A1 Cable Assembly Cantz; Thomas Et Al.
Us 20170001529 A1 Charging Cable For An Electric Vehicle Fuchs; Thomas Et Al.
Us 20210198093 A1 Robotic Systems Graham; Andrew Crispin Et Al.
Us 20200317071 A1 Charging Cable System With Cooling Hakenberg; Peter
Us 20170330644 A1 Charging Cable Jung; Yun Jae Et Al.
Us 20190248250 A1 Charging Cable Recognition Device Lyutskanov; Atanas Et Al.
Us 20150343912 A1 Guidance System And Method Mcnally; Mark
Us 12157383 B1 Electric Vehicle Charging Pill; Jake Et Al.
Us 10717367 B1 Thermal Control Systems Price; William M. Et Al.
Us 20190217728 A1 Fast Charging Cable Reber; Volker Et Al.
Us 20240279022 A1 Cable Tensioning Based On Load Profiles Rosenblatt; Michael
Us 20240092194 A1 Charging Device Rosenblatt; Michael Et Al.
Us 20220194236 A1 Automotive Battery Power System Whiting; John Et Al.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXIS B PACHECO whose telephone number is (571)272-5979. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 - 5:30.
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.
ALEXIS BOATENG PACHECO
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2859
/ALEXIS B PACHECO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2859