DETAILED ACTION
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on April 1, 2026, has been entered.
In the response filed April 1, 2026, the Applicant amended claims 1 and 14; canceled claims 25 and 26. Claims 1-7 and 14-24 are pending in the current application.
Notice of 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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments for claims 1-7 and 14-24 with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection have been considered but are unpersuasive. Applicant argues that the claims integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Here, under broadest reasonable interpretation, the steps identified by the Applicant (e.g. identifying,…, a first electric trailer that is compatible for being towed by the first vehicle, wherein the first electric trailer comprises: a plurality of wheels; one or more batteries; and one or more electric motors powered by the one or more batteries and coupled to one or more of the wheels to provide propulsive power to move the first electric trailer; determining,…, based on information stored in the distributed ledger, a charge level of the one or more batteries of the first electric trailer) describe or set-forth evaluating information about a trailer and storing information pertaining to a transaction associated with the trailer, which amounts to commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations). These limitations therefore fall within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” subject matter grouping of abstract ideas.
The requirement to execute the claimed steps/functions using “a first processor of a first vehicle,” “a distributed ledger,” “a blockchain operation,” (claim 1); “a system comprising: a distributed ledger,” “a first electric trailer administrative system…provided in a first vehicle,” “a first processor,” (claim 14), is equivalent to adding the words “apply it” on a generic computer and/or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer. These limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and therefore do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See § MPEP 2106.05(f).
Viewing the additional limitations in combination also shows that they fail to ensure the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. When considered as an ordered combination, the additional components of the claims add nothing that is not already present when considered separately, and thus simply append the abstract idea with words equivalent to “apply it” on a generic computer and/or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer. Applicant’s arguments remain unpersuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection is hereby maintained.
Applicant’s arguments for claims 1-7 and 14-24 with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the combination of references being used in the current rejection.
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 1-7 and 14-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1: Claims 1-7 and 21-24 are drawn to a process and claims 14-20 are drawn to a machine, each of which is within the four statutory categories (e.g., a process, a machine). (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A – Prong One: In prong one of step 2A, the claims are analyzed to evaluate whether they recite a judicial exception.
Claim 1 recites/describes the following steps:
“evaluating, …, a… ledger, for obtaining information about one or more electric trailers;”
“identifying,…, a first electric trailer that is compatible for being towed by the first vehicle, wherein the first electric trailer comprises: a plurality of wheels; one or more batteries; and one or more electric motors powered by the one or more batteries and coupled to one or more of the wheels to provide propulsive power to move the first electric trailer;”
“determining,…, based on information stored…, a charge level of the one or more batteries of the first electric trailer;” and
“evaluating, …, the charge level of the one or more batteries of the first electric trailer in view of at least one of a planned travel distance of the first vehicle or a characteristic of a terrain on a planned travel route of the first vehicle;”
“storing, …, in the … ledger,… information pertaining to a transaction associated with the first electric trailer.”
Claim 14 recites/describes the following steps:
“store information associated with a plurality of electric trailers, wherein the first electric trailer comprises: a plurality of wheels; one or more batteries; and one or more electric motors powered by the one or more batteries and coupled to one or more of the wheels to provide propulsive power to move the first electric trailer;”
“…obtaining information about the plurality of electric trailers, the information including a charge level of a battery in at least one of the plurality of electric trailers,”
“identify, based on evaluating a content of the… ledger, a first electric trailer of the plurality of electric trailers that is compatible for being towed by the first vehicle;”
“determine,…, based on information stored…, a charge level of the one or more batteries of the first electric trailer;”
“evaluate, …, the charge level of the one or more batteries of the first electric trailer in view of at least one of a planned travel distance of the first vehicle or a characteristic of a terrain on a planned travel route of the first vehicle;” and
“store, …, information pertaining to a transaction associated with the first electric trailer.”
These steps, under broadest reasonable interpretation, describe or set-forth evaluating information about a trailer and storing information pertaining to a transaction associated with the trailer, which amounts to commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations). These limitations therefore fall within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” subject matter grouping of abstract ideas.
As such, the Examiner concludes that claim 1 recites an abstract idea (Step 2A – Prong One: YES).
Each of the depending claims likewise recite/describe these steps (by incorporation - and therefore also recite limitations that fall within this subject matter grouping of abstract ideas), and these claims are therefore determined to recite an abstract idea under the same analysis. Any elements recited in a dependent claim that are not specifically identified/addressed by the Examiner under step 2A (prong two) or step 2B of this analysis shall be understood to be an additional part of the abstract idea recited by that particular claim.
Step 2A – Prong Two:
The claims recite the additional elements/limitations of: “a first processor of a first vehicle,” “a distributed ledger,” “a blockchain operation,” (claim 1); “a system comprising: a distributed ledger,” “a first electric trailer administrative system…provided in a first vehicle,” “a first processor,” (claim 14).
The requirement to execute the claimed steps/functions using “a first processor of a first vehicle,” “a distributed ledger,” “a blockchain operation,” (claim 1); “a system comprising: a distributed ledger,” “a first electric trailer administrative system…provided in a first vehicle,” “a first processor,” (claim 14), is equivalent to adding the words “apply it” on a generic computer and/or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer. These limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and therefore do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See § MPEP 2106.05(f).
Remaining dependent claims 2-7 and 15-26 either recite the same additional elements as noted above or fail to recite any additional elements (in which case, note prong one analysis as set forth above – those claims are further part of the abstract idea as identified by the Examiner for each respective dependent claim).
The Examiner has therefore determined that the additional elements, or combination of additional elements, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Accordingly, the claims are directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A – Prong two: NO).
Step 2B:
As discussed above in “Step 2A – Prong 2,” the requirement to execute the claimed steps/functions using “a first processor of a first vehicle,” “a distributed ledger,” “a blockchain operation,” (claim 1); “a system comprising: a distributed ledger,” “a first electric trailer administrative system…provided in a first vehicle,” “a first processor,” (claim 14), is equivalent to adding the words “apply it” on a generic computer and/or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer. These limitations therefore do not qualify as “significantly more.” See MPEP § 2106.05(f).
Viewing the additional limitations in combination also shows that they fail to ensure the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. When considered as an ordered combination, the additional components of the claims add nothing that is not already present when considered separately, and thus simply append the abstract idea with words equivalent to “apply it” on a generic computer and/or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer.
Remaining dependent claims 2-7 and 15-26 either recite the same additional elements as noted above or fail to recite any additional elements (in which case, note prong one analysis as set forth above – those claims are further part of the abstract idea as identified by the Examiner for each respective dependent claim).
The Examiner has therefore determined that no additional element, or combination of additional claims elements is/are sufficient to ensure the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea identified above (Step 2B: NO).
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 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 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, 3, 5, 7, 14-18, 21, and 22, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dooley et al. (US 2022/0305945 A1), hereinafter Dooley, in view of Hopkins, III, et al. (US 12,175,436 B1), hereinafter Hopkins.
Regarding claim 1, Dooley discloses a method comprising:
evaluating, by a first processor of a first vehicle (Par. [0077], vehicle authentication processing device 25 at the vehicle 9 that communicates with another element via a communications network 12), a distributed ledger (Par. [0079], the data store 11 can be a peer-to-peer distributed ledger 13 to provide robustness. In further examples, the data store 11 is blockchain based to assist in immutability of information stored therein.), for obtaining information about one or more electric trailers (Par. [0035]);
identifying, by the first processor, based on evaluating a content of the distributed ledger, a first electric trailer that is compatible for being towed by the first vehicle (Par. [0035], at least one trailer), wherein the first electric trailer comprises: a plurality of wheels; one or more batteries; and one or more electric motors powered by the one or more batteries and coupled to one or more of the wheels to provide propulsive power to move the first electric trailer (Par. [0035], a trailer powertrain to drive trailer wheels, wherein in the first mode the trailer powertrain draws power from the swappable battery, and/or a trailer swappable battery);
determining, by the first processor, based on information stored in the distributed ledger, a charge level of the one or more batteries of the first electric trailer (Par. [0169], data from the swappable battery 5 in relation to battery charging, discharging, and use with charging stations 3 and vehicles 9 is sent to the server 27. This can include the server 27 receiving information on the state of charge of batteries 5, charging of batteries by the charging station 3, and/or use of batteries 5 and vehicles);
evaluating, by the first processor, the charge level of the one or more batteries of the first electric trailer in view of at least one of a planned travel distance of the first vehicle or a characteristic of a terrain on a planned travel route of the first vehicle (Par. [0169], This may also include energy used (e.g. kWh), location information (including location where the batteries were swapped), distance travelled, energy consumption, trip information, associated temperature(s) and other metrics useful for the owner, operator, user, and/or researcher).
Dooley does not explicitly disclose storing, by the first processor, in the distributed ledger, based on a blockchain operation, information pertaining to a transaction associated with the first electric trailer. Hopkins teaches storing, by the first processor, in the distributed ledger, based on a blockchain operation, information pertaining to a transaction associated with a vehicle (Col. 11: Lines 36-41, The transaction(s) 204 may include the data stored in the blockchain 200, and each block 202 may store any number of records each indicating when and in what order the transaction(s) 204 are applied to modify the data stored in the blockchain 200). 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 distributed ledger system of Dooley to include transaction information storage abilities as taught in Hopkins since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself - that is in the substitution of the transaction data stored in the distributed ledger of Hopkins for the information pertaining to trailers stored in the distributed ledger as disclosed in Dooley. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious.
Regarding claim 3, Dooley and Hopkins disclose the method of claim 1. Dooley does not explicitly disclose wherein the transaction comprises one of a first rental request, a first lease request, or a first purchase request, and wherein the method further comprises: entering, by the first processor, into a database, information pertaining to the one of the first rental request, the first lease request, or the first purchase request. Hopkins teaches wherein the transaction comprises one of a first rental request, a first lease request, or a first purchase request, and wherein the method further comprises: entering, by the first processor, into a database, information pertaining to the one of the first rental request, the first lease request, or the first purchase request (Col. 11: Lines 36-41, The transaction(s) 204 may include the data stored in the blockchain 200, and each block 202 may store any number of records each indicating when and in what order the transaction(s) 204 are applied to modify the data stored in the blockchain 200). 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 distributed ledger system of Dooley to include transaction information storage abilities as taught in Hopkins since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself - that is in the substitution of the transaction data stored in the distributed ledger of Hopkins for the information pertaining to trailers stored in the distributed ledger as disclosed in Dooley. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious.
Regarding claim 5, Dooley and Hopkins disclose the method of claim 3. Dooley discloses wherein the distributed ledger is accessible via a network, and wherein the first private ledger is isolated from the network (Par. [0043]).
Regarding claim 7, Dooley and Hopkins disclose the method of claim 5. Dooley discloses wherein the network is a peer-to-peer network configured to support blockchain operations, and wherein the content of the distributed ledger is secured by use of blockchain operations to store the content in the distributed ledger (Par. [0042]; Par. [0043]).
Regarding claim 14, Dooley discloses a system comprising: a distributed ledger configured to store information associated with a plurality of electric trailers (Par. [0079], the data store 11 can be a peer-to-peer distributed ledger 13 to provide robustness. In further examples, the data store 11 is blockchain based to assist in immutability of information stored therein.),
wherein each of the electric trailers comprises: a plurality of wheels; one or more batteries; and one or more electric motors powered by the one or more batteries and coupled to one or more of the wheels to provide propulsive power to move the first electric trailer (Par. [0035], a trailer powertrain to drive trailer wheels, wherein in the first mode the trailer powertrain draws power from the swappable battery, and/or a trailer swappable battery);
a first electric trailer administrative system configured to interoperate with the distributed ledger for obtaining information about the plurality of electric trailers, the information including a charge level of a battery in at least one of the plurality of electric trailers, wherein the first electric trailer administrative system is provided in a first vehicle and comprises a first processor (Par. [0077], vehicle authentication processing device 25 at the vehicle 9 that communicates with another element via a communications network 12) configured to:
identify, based on evaluating a content of the distributed ledger, a first electric trailer that is compatible for being towed by the first vehicle (Par. [0035], at least one trailer);
determine, based on information stored in the distributed ledger, a charge level of the one or more batteries of the first electric trailer (Par. [0169], data from the swappable battery 5 in relation to battery charging, discharging, and use with charging stations 3 and vehicles 9 is sent to the server 27. This can include the server 27 receiving information on the state of charge of batteries 5, charging of batteries by the charging station 3, and/or use of batteries 5 and vehicles);
evaluate the charge level of the one or more batteries of the first electric trailer in view of at least one of a planned travel distance of the first vehicle or a characteristic of a terrain on a planned travel route of the first vehicle (Par. [0169], This may also include energy used (e.g. kWh), location information (including location where the batteries were swapped), distance travelled, energy consumption, trip information, associated temperature(s) and other metrics useful for the owner, operator, user, and/or researcher).
Dooley does not explicitly disclose store in the distributed ledger, based on a blockchain operation, information pertaining to a transaction associated with the first electric trailer. Hopkins teaches storing, by the first processor, in the distributed ledger, based on a blockchain operation, information pertaining to a transaction associated with a vehicle (Col. 11: Lines 36-41, The transaction(s) 204 may include the data stored in the blockchain 200, and each block 202 may store any number of records each indicating when and in what order the transaction(s) 204 are applied to modify the data stored in the blockchain 200). 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 distributed ledger system of Dooley to include transaction information storage abilities as taught in Hopkins since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself - that is in the substitution of the transaction data stored in the distributed ledger of Hopkins for the information pertaining to trailers stored in the distributed ledger as disclosed in Dooley. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious.
Regarding claim 15, Dooley and Hopkins disclose the method of claim 14. Dooley discloses wherein the network is a peer-to-peer network configured to support blockchain operations, and wherein the content of the distributed ledger is secured by use of blockchain operations to store the content in the distributed ledger (Par. [0042]; Par. [0043]).
Regarding claim 16, Dooley and Hopkins disclose the system of claim 15. Hopkins teaches wherein the information stored in the database comprises at least one of a rental transaction, a lease transaction, or a purchase transaction involving the first vehicle and at least the first electric trailer (Col. 11: Lines 36-41, The transaction(s) 204 may include the data stored in the blockchain 200, and each block 202 may store any number of records each indicating when and in what order the transaction(s) 204 are applied to modify the data stored in the blockchain 200). 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 distributed ledger system of Dooley to include transaction information storage abilities as taught in Hopkins since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself - that is in the substitution of the transaction data stored in the distributed ledger of Hopkins for the information pertaining to trailers stored in the distributed ledger as disclosed in Dooley. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious.
Regarding claim 17, Dooley and Hopkins disclose the system of claim 15. Dooley further discloses wherein the information stored in the database comprises at least one of a weight of the first electric trailer, a drive capacity of one or more electric motors of the first electric trailer, or battery health information of a battery in the first electric trailer (Par. [0169], data from the swappable battery 5 in relation to battery charging, discharging, and use with charging stations 3 and vehicles 9 is sent to the server 27. This can include the server 27 receiving information on the state of charge of batteries 5, charging of batteries by the charging station 3, and/or use of batteries 5 and vehicles).
Regarding claim 18, Dooley and Hopkins disclose the system of claim 15. Dooley further comprises a first database configured to at least store information about the first electric trailer (Par. [0169], This may also include energy used (e.g. kWh), location information (including location where the batteries were swapped), distance travelled, energy consumption, trip information, associated temperature(s) and other metrics useful for the owner, operator, user, and/or researcher).
Regarding claim 21, Dooley and Hopkins disclose the method of claim 1. Dooley does not explicitly disclose executing the transaction. Hopkins teaches executing the transaction (Col. 11: Lines 36-41, The transaction(s) 204 may include the data stored in the blockchain 200, and each block 202 may store any number of records each indicating when and in what order the transaction(s) 204 are applied to modify the data stored in the blockchain 200). 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 distributed ledger system of Dooley to include transaction information storage abilities as taught in Hopkins since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself - that is in the substitution of the transaction data stored in the distributed ledger of Hopkins for the information pertaining to trailers stored in the distributed ledger as disclosed in Dooley. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious.
Regarding claim 22, Dooley and Hopkins disclose the method of claim 1. Dooley does not explicitly disclose wherein the transaction comprises a first rental request for the first electric trailer. Hopkins teaches wherein the transaction comprises a first rental request for a vehicle (Col. 11: Lines 36-41, The transaction(s) 204 may include the data stored in the blockchain 200, and each block 202 may store any number of records each indicating when and in what order the transaction(s) 204 are applied to modify the data stored in the blockchain 200). 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 distributed ledger system of Dooley to include transaction information storage abilities as taught in Hopkins since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself - that is in the substitution of the transaction data stored in the distributed ledger of Hopkins for the information pertaining to trailers stored in the distributed ledger as disclosed in Dooley. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious.
Claims 2, 4, 6, 19, and 20, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dooley (US 2022/0305945 A1) in view of Hopkins (US 12,175,436 B1) and Goei (US 2022/0332210 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Dooley and Hopkins disclose the method of claim 1. Hopkins further discloses determining, by the first processor, based on evaluating the content of the database, a charge level of a battery in the first electric trailer (Par. [0169], data from the swappable battery 5 in relation to battery charging, discharging, and use with charging stations 3 and vehicles 9 is sent to the server 27. This can include the server 27 receiving information on the state of charge of batteries 5, charging of batteries by the charging station 3, and/or use of batteries 5 and vehicles).
Dooley does not explicitly disclose wherein the transaction comprises a first rental request for the first electric trailer, and wherein the method further comprises: determining, by the first processor, that the charge level of the battery is equal to or greater than a threshold charge level; and storing, by the first processor, in the database, the first rental request based on determining that the charge level of the battery in the first electric trailer is equal to or greater than the threshold charge level.
Goei teaches determining, by the first processor, that the charge level of the battery is equal to or greater than a threshold charge level (Par. [0067], Through the mobile device application 808, a user of an electric vehicle request at step 902 a location of a electric vehicle charger unit 806 that is compatible with their brand of vehicle. The charging control server 804 matches the vehicle to one or more appropriate vehicle chargers 806 at step 904 responsive to the position of the vehicle and the type of charger required to charge the vehicle); and
storing, by the first processor, in the database, the first rental request based on determining that the charge level of the battery in the first electric trailer is equal to or greater than the threshold charge level (Par. [0069], The database 1002 may also store information related to the registered electric vehicle such as the last time the electric vehicle was charged, the state of charge to enable the system to estimate the battery exhaustion time and recommended charging locations that an electric vehicle could reach before running out of power).
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 distributed ledger system of Dooley and Hopkins to include threshold information storage abilities as taught in Goei since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. Since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself - that is in the substitution of the transaction data stored in the distributed ledger of Hopkins and Dooley for the information pertaining to trailers stored in a database as disclosed in Goei. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious.
Regarding claim 4, Dooley, Hopkins, and Goei disclose the method of claim 3. Dooley does not explicitly disclose entering, by a second processor of the first electric trailer, into a database of the first electric trailer, the information pertaining to the one of the first rental request, the first lease request, or the first purchase request; and limiting, by the second processor, access to the second private ledger to a first electric trailer administrative system that is other than a second electric trailer administrative system of the first electric trailer. Goei teaches further comprising: entering, by a second processor of the first electric trailer, into a database of the first electric trailer, the information pertaining to the one of the first rental request, the first lease request, or the first purchase request; and limiting, by the second processor, access to the second private ledger to a first electric trailer administrative system that is other than a second electric trailer administrative system of the first electric trailer (Par. [0067], Through the mobile device application 808, a user of an electric vehicle request at step 902 a location of a electric vehicle charger unit 806 that is compatible with their brand of vehicle. The charging control server 804 matches the vehicle to one or more appropriate vehicle chargers 806 at step 904 responsive to the position of the vehicle and the type of charger required to charge the vehicle; Par. [0071], A payment database 1010 stores payment information for registered system users. The payment database 1010 stores information required to enable payment for charging sessions via credit card, PayPal, Apple Pay, or other payment mechanisms).
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 distributed ledger system of Dooley and Hopkins to include threshold information storage abilities as taught in Goei since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. Since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself - that is in the substitution of the transaction data stored in the distributed ledger of Hopkins and Dooley for the information pertaining to trailers stored in a database as disclosed in Goei. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious.
Regarding claim 6, Dooley and Hopkins disclose the method of claim 5. Dooley does not explicitly disclose wherein storing, by the first processor, in the distributed ledger, information pertaining to the one of the first rental request, the first lease request, or the first purchase request, is based on executing the blockchain operation in cooperation with at least one of a second electric trailer administrative system of the first electric trailer, a third electric trailer administrative system in a second vehicle, or a fourth electric trailer administrative system in a network administrative computer. Goei teaches wherein storing, by the first processor, in the distributed ledger, information pertaining to the one of the first rental request, the first lease request, or the first purchase request, is based on executing the blockchain operation in cooperation with at least one of a second electric trailer administrative system of the first electric trailer, a third electric trailer administrative system in a second vehicle, or a fourth electric trailer administrative system in a network administrative computer (Par. [0067], Through the mobile device application 808, a user of an electric vehicle request at step 902 a location of a electric vehicle charger unit 806 that is compatible with their brand of vehicle. The charging control server 804 matches the vehicle to one or more appropriate vehicle chargers 806 at step 904 responsive to the position of the vehicle and the type of charger required to charge the vehicle; Par. [0071], A payment database 1010 stores payment information for registered system users. The payment database 1010 stores information required to enable payment for charging sessions via credit card, PayPal, Apple Pay, or other payment mechanisms).
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 distributed ledger system of Dooley and Hopkins to include threshold information storage abilities as taught in Goei since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. Since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself - that is in the substitution of the transaction data stored in the distributed ledger of Hopkins and Dooley for the information pertaining to trailers stored in a database as disclosed in Goei. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious.
Regarding claim 19, Dooley and Hopkins disclose the system of claim 18. Dooley does not explicitly disclose wherein the method further comprises: a second vehicle that includes a second electric trailer administrative system configured to interoperate with the database, the second electric trailer administrative system comprising a second private ledger configured to store information about a second electric trailer of the plurality of electric trailers that is associated with the second vehicle. Goei teaches wherein the method further comprises: a second vehicle that includes a second electric trailer administrative system configured to interoperate with the database, the second electric trailer administrative system comprising a second private ledger configured to store information about a second electric trailer of the plurality of electric trailers that is associated with the second vehicle (Par. [0067], Through the mobile device application 808, a user of an electric vehicle request at step 902 a location of a electric vehicle charger unit 806 that is compatible with their brand of vehicle. The charging control server 804 matches the vehicle to one or more appropriate vehicle chargers 806 at step 904 responsive to the position of the vehicle and the type of charger required to charge the vehicle; Par. [0071], A payment database 1010 stores payment information for registered system users. The payment database 1010 stores information required to enable payment for charging sessions via credit card, PayPal, Apple Pay, or other payment mechanisms).
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 distributed ledger system of Dooley and Hopkins to include threshold information storage abilities as taught in Goei since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. Since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself - that is in the substitution of the transaction data stored in the distributed ledger of Hopkins and Dooley for the information pertaining to trailers stored in a database as disclosed in Goei. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious.
Regarding claim 20, Dooley, Hopkins, and Goei disclose the system of claim 19. Dooley does not explicitly disclose wherein the first private ledger is inaccessible to the second electric trailer administrative system, and wherein the second private ledger is inaccessible to the first electric trailer administrative system. Goei teaches wherein the first private ledger is inaccessible to the second electric trailer administrative system, and wherein the second private ledger is inaccessible to the first electric trailer administrative system (Par. [0096], The account controller 1810 provides real-time account access by vendors and users as to their individual accounts to obtain charger usage and financial information and management; ledgers are inaccessible without permission; Par. [0102]).
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 distributed ledger system of Dooley and Hopkins to include threshold information storage abilities as taught in Goei since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. Since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself - that is in the substitution of the transaction data stored in the distributed ledger of Hopkins and Dooley for the information pertaining to trailers stored in a database as disclosed in Goei. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dooley (US 2022/0305945 A1) in view of Hopkins (US 12,175,436 B1) and Hall (US 2019/0143771 A1).
Regarding claim 23, Dooley and Hopkins disclose the method of claim 1. Dooley does not explicitly disclose identifying, by the first processor, based on evaluating the content of the database, the first electric trailer that is compatible for being towed by the first vehicle comprises comparing a weight of the first electric trailer to a towing capacity of the first vehicle. Hall teaches identifying the first electric trailer that is compatible for being towed by the first vehicle comprises comparing a weight of the first electric trailer to a towing capacity of the first vehicle (Par. [0025], If the weight of the tow vehicle and the trailer are within specifications, and they are compatible, this information (“OK to haul”, green indicator light or other visual alert, or audible positive alert) is then communicated to the user).
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 vehicle charging system of Dooley to include the compatibility determination abilities of Hall as a need exists to properly and accurately determine compatibility of trailers set-ups for towing vehicles (Hall, Par. [0006]). Since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself - that is in the substitution of the identification of tow compatible vehicles of Hall for the identification of compatible vehicles of Dooley. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dooley (US 2022/0305945 A1) in view of Hopkins (US 12,175,436 B1) and Pillar et al. (US 2005/0114007 A1), hereinafter Pillar.
Regarding claim 24, Dooley and Hopkins disclose the method of claim 1. Dooley does not explicitly disclose wherein identifying, by the first processor, based on evaluating the content of the distributed ledger, the first electric trailer that is compatible for being towed by the first vehicle comprises evaluating a drive capacity of one or more electric motors of the first electric trailer. Pillar teaches evaluating a drive capacity of one or more electric motors of the first electric trailer (Par, [0287]). 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 vehicle charging system of Dooley and Hopkins to include the electric motor capacity determination abilities of Pillar since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Patrick Kim whose telephone number is (571)272-8619. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9AM - 5PM EST.
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, Lynda Jasmin can be reached at (571)272-6782. 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.
/Patrick Kim/Examiner, Art Unit 3629
Prosecution Insights