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 .
Status of the Claims
In the communication dated February 6, 2023, claims 1-19 are pending.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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.
Claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The claims, in particular claims 1, 10 and 19, recite a mental process that includes the steps of “receiving” and “analyzing”. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims recite receiving data and analyzing the data. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because although there is a step of performing a charging operation, the performance is used to provide data to be analyzed. Thus, the claims are directed mere information in the form of data which is not eligible subject matter rather an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.03).
Claims 2-3, 8-9, 11-12 and 17-18 do not present significantly more. The claim language includes “calculating” and “receiving” which maintains the form of data, which, as discussed above has been determined to be an abstract idea.
Claims 4-7 and 13-16 are rejected due to their dependency from a rejected claim.
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.
(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, 8, 10-12, 17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Sato et al. US20100076825A1.
Regarding claim 1. Sato discloses a charging management method for electric vehicle charging stations (201) for use in a server (217) (FIG. 3), comprising:
performing at least one charging operation at an electric vehicle charging station by at least one electric vehicle (203), thereby generating at least one charging data (309 – charging/discharging is monitored);
receiving the at least one charging data corresponding to the at least one charging operation through a network (311-312 – transmit results of charging to a server); and
analyzing a usage index corresponding to the electric vehicle charging station according to the at least one charging data (¶74 – reward points computed corresponding to the charge/discharge quantity included in the results – a computation being a mathematical calculation that forms an index).
Regarding claim 10. A charging management system for electric vehicle charging stations (201), comprising:
an electric vehicle charging station (201) providing at least one electric vehicle (203) to perform at least one charging operation, thereby generating at least one charging data (309 – charging/discharging is monitored); and
a server (117) receiving the at least one charging data corresponding to the at least one charging operation through a network (214/215/216) (311-312 – transmit results of charging to a server), and
analyzing a usage index corresponding to the electric vehicle charging station according to the at least one charging data (¶74 – reward points computed corresponding to the charge/discharge quantity included in the results – a computation being a mathematical calculation that forms an index).
Regarding claim 2 and claim 11. Sato discloses calculating a charging station usage reward for a charging point operator (CPO) (user) corresponding to the electric vehicle charging station based on the usage index (¶74 – a reward point is calculated).
Regarding claim 3 and claim 12. Sato discloses that the at least one charging data is received by the charging point operator through the network (214/215/216) (¶78 – exchange of information via communication network 214), and the server (217) belongs to a charging roaming management platform (FIG. 2 – is used with different electric vehicles needing charging).
Regarding claim 8 and claim 17. Sato discloses that the usage index comprises a usage status during peak hours, a usage status during off-peak hours, or an implementation status of demand response (FIG. 5; ¶41 – reward information quantitatively represents a degree of contribution for each time zone; ¶53 – estimated power demand for 24 hours on the following day).
Regarding claim 19. A machine-readable storage medium comprising a computer program (¶94 – program to be read by the CPU, which, when executed, causes a device to perform a charging management method for electric vehicle charging stations (¶94 – executing information processing), wherein the method comprises:
performing at least one charging operation at an electric vehicle charging station by at least one electric vehicle (203), thereby generating at least one charging data (309 – charging/discharging is monitored);
receiving the at least one charging data corresponding to the at least one charging operation through a network (311-312 – transmit results of charging to a server); and
analyzing a usage index corresponding to the electric vehicle charging station according to the at least one charging data (¶74 – reward points computed corresponding to the charge/discharge quantity included in the results – a computation being a mathematical calculation that forms an index).
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 4-7 and 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato et al. US20100076825A1 in view of Richard US20110251882A1.
Regarding claim 4 and claim 13. Sato discloses calculating a charging fee based on the at least one charging data (¶56 – fuel cost determined from according to a power feeding plan);
receiving identification data corresponding to the electric vehicle or an owner of the electric vehicle through the network (FIG. 10 at 1003; ¶69-70; ¶77-78); and
Although Sato discloses that points are redeemable in forms such as refund, services or a certificate, thus the reward offsets the operation (¶75), Sato does not explicitly teach the account offset operation includes the steps of: searching a stored value database according to the identification data to obtain an account balance corresponding to the identification data); and deducting the charging fee from the account balance until the account balance becomes zero.
Richard teaches executing an account offset operation based on the identification data (¶174-175 – user profile database),
wherein the account offset operation includes the steps of:
searching a stored value database according to the identification data to obtain an account balance corresponding to the identification data (¶174-175 – user found in user profile database which stores the number of reward points); and
deducting the charging fee from the account balance until the account balance becomes zero (¶174-175 – points are redeemed to pay for good/services).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill to provide the method of reword accounting, as taught by Richard, to the redeemability of Sato in order to provide an incentive for a user to participate in obtaining a reward (Richard; ¶5).
Regarding claim 5 and claim 14. Sato discloses determining whether the electric vehicle or the owner of the electric vehicle meets a predetermined identity based on the identification data (FIG. 10 at 1003; ¶69-70; ¶77-78); and
executing the account offset operation when the electric vehicle or the owner of the electric vehicle meets the predetermined identity (¶74 – points are redeemable in forms such as refund, services or a certificate, thus the reward offsets the operation).
Regarding claim 6 and claim 15. Sato discloses that the identification data corresponding to the electric vehicle or the owner of the electric vehicle is received from an E-mobility service provider (EMSP) through the network (¶57 – provider manages the charge management central server 217), and
the server (217) belongs to a charging roaming management platform (FIG. 2 – is used with different electric vehicles needing charging)
Regarding claim 7 and claim 16. Sato discloses calculating a compensation content of the E-mobility service provider (¶57 – provider manages the charge management central server 217) based on the charging fee of the identification data (claim 9; ¶56-57 – reward information is created based on a limited fuel cost).
Claims 9 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato et al. US20100076825A1 in view of Obara et al. US20200193460A1.
Regarding claim 9 and claim 18. Sato discloses receiving identification data corresponding to the electric vehicle through the network (FIG. 10 at 1003; ¶69-70; ¶77-78);
Sato does not explicitly teach receiving and recording mileage data of the electric vehicle through the network; and calculating a vehicle mileage reward corresponding to the electric vehicle based on the identification data and the mileage data.
Obara discloses receiving and recording mileage data of the electric vehicle through the network (¶60 – travel distance section 53c calculates a travel distance for vehicle V1); and
calculating a vehicle mileage reward corresponding to the electric vehicle based on the identification data and the mileage data (¶69 – travel reward calculated based on the travel distance).
It would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide the travel reward of Obara to the reward system of Sato in order to promote traveling (Obara; ¶4).
Related Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Bryer et al. US10445758B1 discloses rewarding a driver according to a driving score.
Wang US20200324666A1 discloses identifying a vehicle to be charged and charging the vehicle according to the identification (¶37).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAMELA JEPPSON whose telephone number is (571)272-4094. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30 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, Drew Dunn can be reached at 571-272-2312. 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.
/PAMELA J JEPPSON/Examiner, Art Unit 2859
/DREW A DUNN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2859