DETAILED ACTION
In the response filed November 12, 2025, the Applicant amended claims 1, 2, 4-6, and 14-20; canceled claims 8-13; and added claims 21-26. Claims 1-7 and 14-26 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
Claim 4 was objected to for informalities. Examiner thanks the Applicant for revising and amending the claim language and hereby withdraws the objection from the previous Office action.
Applicant states in the remarks that the previous Office action indicated claims 6-14 would be allowable if rewritten in independent form on page 26 of the Office action. However, no such indication was made in the 25 page Office action mailed on November 4, 2025. In addition, Applicant has indicated claims 8-13 are canceled in the submitted amendments. Claims 6, 7, and 14 remain pending in the current application.
Applicant’s arguments for claims 1-7 and 14-26 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. “evaluating, …, a… ledger, for obtaining information about one or more electric trailers;” “identifying, …, based on evaluating a content of the … ledger, a first electric trailer that is compatible for being towed by the first vehicle;” and “storing, …, in the … ledger,… information pertaining to a transaction associated with 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 14-26 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 14-20 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 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, …, based on evaluating a content of the … ledger, a first electric trailer that is compatible with the first vehicle;” and
“storing, …, in the … ledger,… information pertaining to a transaction associated with the first electric trailer.”
Claim 14 recites/describes the following steps:
“…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;” 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 1-7, 14-23, 25, and 26, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goei (US 2022/0332210 A1) in view of Hall et al. (US 2019/0143771 A1), hereinafter Hall, and Dooley et al. (US 2022/0305945 A1), hereinafter Dooley.
Regarding claim 1, Goei discloses a method comprising:
evaluating, by a first processor of a first vehicle, a database (Par. [0072], Additionally, the database 1014 would include information tying the vehicle to particular charging information and other user or vehicle relevant information.), for obtaining information about one or more electric trailers (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. [0034], a mobile EV charging system 102 (“MEC”) for the reservation of, and the deployment and use of chargers that are incorporated into a mobile charging platform 104 such as…a container module that can be transported; Examiner notes Fig. 1 illustrates that mobile device application 808 can be utilized by the electric vehicle through app 108a.);
identifying, by the first processor, based on evaluating a content of the database, a first electric trailer that is compatible with the first vehicle (Par. [0067], Through the mobile device application 808, a user of an electric vehicle request at step 902 a location of a electrical 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, information pertaining to a transaction associated with the first electric trailer (Par. [0071], The payment controller 1012 controls interactions with the mobile device application 808, charging information within the charging control server 804 and the vendor accounts for the charging unit 806 enable transfer of funds from a charging vehicle to a vendor responsible for the charging unit 806 providing a charging session).
Goei does not explicitly disclose identifying, by the first processor, based on evaluating a content of the database, a first electric trailer that is compatible for being towed by the first vehicle. Hall teaches identifying a first electric trailer that is compatible for being towed by the first vehicle (Par. [0028], The system also includes at least one data input device, and a server comprising a processor and non-volatile memory. The processor is configured to: receive the UTEIC from the data input device, receive a user input from the mobile device, determine tow equipment compatibility based on the user input and the UTEIC; and communicate the tow equipment compatibility data to a 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 Goei 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 Goei. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious.
Goei and Hall do not explicitly disclose a distributed ledger and blockchain operations. Dooley teaches a distributed ledger (Par. [0042]) and a blockchain based distributed ledger (Par. [0043]). 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 Goei and Hall to include the blockchain abilities of Dooley as a need exists to improve the management of charging systems (Dooley, 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 distributed ledger and blockchain of Dooley for the system database of Goei and Hall. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious.
Regarding claim 2, Goei, Hall, and Dooley disclose the method of claim 1. Goei further discloses wherein the transaction comprises a first rental request for 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), and wherein the method further comprises:
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. [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);
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).
Goei and Hall do not explicitly disclose a distributed ledger and blockchain operations. Dooley teaches a distributed ledger (Par. [0042]) and a blockchain based distributed ledger (Par. [0043]). 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 Goei and Hall to include the blockchain abilities of Dooley as a need exists to improve the management of charging systems (Dooley, 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 distributed ledger and blockchain of Dooley for the system database of Goei and Hall. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious.
Regarding claim 3, Goei, Hall, and Dooley disclose the method of claim 1. Goei further discloses 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 (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).
Goei and Hall do not explicitly disclose a distributed ledger and blockchain operations. Dooley teaches a distributed ledger (Par. [0042]) and a blockchain based distributed ledger (Par. [0043]). 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 Goei and Hall to include the blockchain abilities of Dooley as a need exists to improve the management of charging systems (Dooley, 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 distributed ledger and blockchain of Dooley for the system database of Goei and Hall. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious.
Regarding claim 4, Goei, Hall, and Dooley disclose the method of claim 3. Goei 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).
Goei and Hall do not explicitly disclose a distributed ledger and blockchain operations. Dooley teaches a distributed ledger (Par. [0042]) and a blockchain based distributed ledger (Par. [0043]). 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 Goei and Hall to include the blockchain abilities of Dooley as a need exists to improve the management of charging systems (Dooley, 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 distributed ledger and blockchain of Dooley for the system database of Goei and Hall. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious.
Regarding claim 5, Goei, Hall, and Dooley disclose the method of claim 3. Goei and Hall do not explicitly disclose a distributed ledger and blockchain operations. Dooley teaches wherein the distributed ledger is accessible via a network, and wherein the first private ledger is isolated from the network (Par. [0043]). 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 Goei and Hall to include the blockchain abilities of Dooley as a need exists to improve the management of charging systems (Dooley, 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 distributed ledger and blockchain of Dooley for the system database of Goei and Hall. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious.
Regarding claim 6, Goei and Dooley disclose the method of claim 5. Goei further discloses 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).
Goei and Hall do not explicitly disclose a distributed ledger and blockchain operations. Dooley teaches a wherein the network is a peer-to-peer network configured to provide blockchain operations, and wherein storing, by the first processor, in the distributed ledger (Par. [0042]; Par. [0043]). 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 Goei and Hall to include the blockchain abilities of Dooley as a need exists to improve the management of charging systems (Dooley, 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 distributed ledger and blockchain of Dooley for the system database of Goei and Hall. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious.
Regarding claim 7, Goei, Hall, and Dooley disclose the method of claim 5. Goei does not explicitly disclose 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. Dooley teaches 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]). 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 Goei and Hall to include the blockchain abilities of Dooley as a need exists to improve the management of charging systems (Dooley, 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 distributed ledger and blockchain of Dooley for the system database of Goei and Hall. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious.
Regarding claim 14, Goei discloses a system comprising: a database configured to store information associated with a plurality of electric trailers (Par. [0072], The registered vehicle database 1014 maintains information concerning registered users with the system 802. Each registered user would have information concerning their vehicle type enabling assistance in selection of charging units 806 appropriate for that vehicle type. Additionally, the database 1014 would include information tying the vehicle to particular charging information and other user or vehicle relevant information. The vehicle status controller 1016 monitors operation of the charging operation by a charging unit 806 to which electric vehicle is connected. The vehicle status controller 1016 can monitor the links of a charge and monitor for conditions indicating that ceasing of the battery charge is necessary due to completion of charging or problem issues requiring ceasing of battery charge); and
a first electric trailer administrative system configured to interoperate with the database 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 (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),
identify, based on evaluating a content of the database, a first electric trailer that is compatible with the first vehicle (Par. [0067], Through the mobile device application 808, a user of an electric vehicle request at step 902 a location of a electrical 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
store, in the database, information pertaining to a transaction associated with the first electric trailer (Par. [0071], The payment controller 1012 controls interactions with the mobile device application 808, charging information within the charging control server 804 and the vendor accounts for the charging unit 806 enable transfer of funds from a charging vehicle to a vendor responsible for the charging unit 806 providing a charging session).
Goei does not explicitly disclose identifying, based on evaluating a content of the database, a first electric trailer that is compatible for being towed by the first vehicle. Hall teaches identifying a first electric trailer that is compatible for being towed by the first vehicle (Par. [0028], The system also includes at least one data input device, and a server comprising a processor and non-volatile memory. The processor is configured to: receive the UTEIC from the data input device, receive a user input from the mobile device, determine tow equipment compatibility based on the user input and the UTEIC; and communicate the tow equipment compatibility data to a 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 Goei 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 Goei. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious.
Goei and Hall do not explicitly disclose a distributed ledger and blockchain operations. Dooley teaches a distributed ledger (Par. [0042]) and a blockchain based distributed ledger (Par. [0043]). 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 Goei and Hall to include the blockchain abilities of Dooley as a need exists to improve the management of charging systems (Dooley, 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 distributed ledger and blockchain of Dooley for the system database of Goei and Hall. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious.
Regarding claim 15, Goei, Hall, and Dooley disclose the system of claim 14. Goei does not explicitly disclose wherein the distributed ledger is a coupled to a peer-to-peer network and is configured to support blockchain operations, and wherein the first electric trailer administrative system is configured to store information in the distributed ledger by executing a blockchain operation. Dooley teaches wherein the distributed ledger is a coupled to a peer-to-peer network and is configured to support blockchain operations, and wherein the first electric trailer administrative system is configured to store information in the distributed ledger by executing a blockchain operation (Par. [0042]; Par. [0043]). 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 Goei and Hall to include the blockchain abilities of Dooley as a need exists to improve the management of charging systems (Dooley, 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 distributed ledger and blockchain of Dooley for the system database of Goei and Hall. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious.
Regarding claim 16, Goei, Hall, and Dooley disclose the system of claim 15. Goei further discloses 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 (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).
Goei and Hall do not explicitly disclose a distributed ledger and blockchain operations. Dooley teaches a distributed ledger (Par. [0042]) and a blockchain based distributed ledger (Par. [0043]). 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 Goei and Hall to include the blockchain abilities of Dooley as a need exists to improve the management of charging systems (Dooley, 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 distributed ledger and blockchain of Dooley for the system database of Goei and Hall. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious.
Regarding claim 17, Goei, Hall, and Dooley disclose the system of claim 15. Goei 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. [0072], The registered vehicle database 1014 maintains information concerning registered users with the system 802. Each registered user would have information concerning their vehicle type enabling assistance in selection of charging units 806 appropriate for that vehicle type. Additionally, the database 1014 would include information tying the vehicle to particular charging information and other user or vehicle relevant information. The vehicle status controller 1016 monitors operation of the charging operation by a charging unit 806 to which electric vehicle is connected. The vehicle status controller 1016 can monitor the links of a charge and monitor for conditions indicating that ceasing of the battery charge is necessary due to completion of charging or problem issues requiring ceasing of battery charge).
Goei and Hall do not explicitly disclose a distributed ledger and blockchain operations. Dooley teaches a distributed ledger (Par. [0042]) and a blockchain based distributed ledger (Par. [0043]). 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 Goei and Hall to include the blockchain abilities of Dooley as a need exists to improve the management of charging systems (Dooley, 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 distributed ledger and blockchain of Dooley for the system database of Goei and Hall. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious.
Regarding claim 18, Goei, Hall, and Dooley disclose the system of claim 15. Goei further comprises a first database configured to at least store information about 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).
Goei and Hall do not explicitly disclose a distributed ledger and blockchain operations. Dooley teaches a distributed ledger (Par. [0042]) and a blockchain based distributed ledger (Par. [0043]). 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 Goei and Hall to include the blockchain abilities of Dooley as a need exists to improve the management of charging systems (Dooley, 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 distributed ledger and blockchain of Dooley for the system database of Goei and Hall. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious.
Regarding claim 19, Goei, Hall, and Dooley disclose the system of claim 18. Goei further discloses 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).
Goei and Hall do not explicitly disclose a distributed ledger and blockchain operations. Dooley teaches a distributed ledger (Par. [0042]) and a blockchain based distributed ledger (Par. [0043]). 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 Goei and Hall to include the blockchain abilities of Dooley as a need exists to improve the management of charging systems (Dooley, 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 distributed ledger and blockchain of Dooley for the system database of Goei and Hall. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious.
Regarding claim 20, Goei, Hall, and Dooley disclose the system of claim 19. Goei further discloses 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]).
Goei and Hall do not explicitly disclose a distributed ledger and blockchain operations. Dooley teaches a distributed ledger (Par. [0042]) and a blockchain based distributed ledger (Par. [0043]). 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 Goei and Hall to include the blockchain abilities of Dooley as a need exists to improve the management of charging systems (Dooley, 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 distributed ledger and blockchain of Dooley for the system database of Goei and Hall. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious.
Regarding claim 21, Goei, Hall, and Dooley disclose the method of claim 1. Goei further discloses executing the transaction (Par. [0044], [0056], payment processing).
Regarding claim 22, Goei, Hall, and Dooley disclose the method of claim 1. Goei further discloses wherein the transaction comprises a first rental request for 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).
Regarding claim 23, Goei, Hall, and Dooley disclose the method of claim 1. Goei 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 Goei 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 Goei. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious.
Regarding claim 25, Goei, Hall, and Dooley disclose the method of claim 1. Goei further discloses further comprising: determining, by the first processor, based on information stored in the database, a charge level of a battery in 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).
Goei and Hall do not explicitly disclose a distributed ledger and blockchain operations. Dooley teaches a distributed ledger (Par. [0042]) and a blockchain based distributed ledger (Par. [0043]). 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 Goei and Hall to include the blockchain abilities of Dooley as a need exists to improve the management of charging systems (Dooley, 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 distributed ledger and blockchain of Dooley for the system database of Goei and Hall. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious.
Regarding claim 26, Goei, Hall, and Dooley disclose the method of claim 25. Goei further discloses evaluating the charge level of the battery in view of at least one of a planned travel distance of the first vehicle, a laden weight of the first vehicle, or a characteristic of a terrain on a planned travel route of the first vehicle (Par. [0053], When a driver makes a long trip such as from Vancouver to Denver which is a distance of over 2,000 km, an EV 406 has to recharge its batteries several times along the way. MEC 402 with AI 502 and other modules can analyze the trip plan route and propose optimum recharge locations and times along the route that would minimize the idle time spent recharging).
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goei (US 2022/0332210 A1) in view of Hall (US 2019/0143771 A1); Dooley (US 2022/0305945 A1); and Pillar et al. (US 2005/0114007 A1), hereinafter Pillar.
Regarding claim 24, Goei, Hall, and Dooley disclose the method of claim 1. Goei 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 Goei, Hall, and Dooley 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
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 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 3628
/NATHAN C UBER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3626