CTNF 18/227,706 CTNF 82561 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Claim Objections 07-29-01 AIA Claim s 3, 10 and17 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 3; Line 1 Claim 10, Line 2 and Claim 17, Line 1 recite the limitation “substantially a same”. The limitation of Claim 3; Line 1 Claim 10, Line 2 and Claim 17, Line 1 should recite: substantially the same . Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 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 1-5, 7-12 and 14-19 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. Claims 1-5, 7-12 and 14-19 are directed to the abstract ideas of mental processes and organizing human activity, as explained in detail below. The limitations of computing a target charging time, computing a total play length of media items, and playing media items that have substantially the same total play length as the target charging time while a vehicle is being charged , as drafted, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “one or more processors” and “non-transitory computer-readable media” , nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, “computing” in the context of these claims encompasses the user manually calculating a target charging time and a total play length of media items. Similarly, the limitation of the target charging time being substantially the same as the play length of the media items, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. In the context of the limitation of the claims encompasses the user comparing a play length of the media items to a selected charging time. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. The limitation of playing media items while the vehicle is charging recites a method of organizing human activity. The claim as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the concept of playing media items in a computer environment. The claimed computer components are recited at a high level of generality. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional elements “a battery”, “an electric vehicle”, “one or more processors” and “non-transitory computer-readable media” at a high level of generality and are recited as performing generic functions routinely used in in the industry. Generic computer components recited as performing generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities amount to no more than implementing the abstract idea with a computerized system. See Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 110 USPQ2d 1976 (U.S.2014). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a storage medium including programmed instructions to be executed by a processor to perform the computing the target charging time, computing the total play length of media items, and playing media items amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – 07-12-aia AIA (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. 07-15-03-aia AIA Claim s 1-3, 5, 8-10, 12, 15-17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Bove, JR. et al. (US 2024/0190289) . Claims 1 and 8: Bove. JR. teaches a system (100) (Fig.1) comprising: one or more processors (216) (Par.42) (Fig.2); and logic encoded in one or more non-transitory computer-readable storage media with program instructions stored thereon, the program instructions when executed by the one or more processors (216) (Par.42) and when executed operable to cause the one or more processors (216) to perform operations comprising: computing a target charging time to charge a battery (116) (Fig.1) of an electric vehicle (110) (Par49); computing a total play length of one or more media items (Par.50); synchronizing the target charging time with the total play length (Par.50); and playing the one or more media items in the electric vehicle (110) while the battery (116) of the electric vehicle (110) is being charged (Par.51). Claims 2 and 9: Bove, JR. teaches the limitations of claims 1 and 8 as disclosed above. Bove, JR . teaches wherein the one or more media items are associated with one or more of movie media items and interactive gaming media items (Par.52). Claims 3 and 10: Bove, JR. teaches the limitations of claims 1 and 8 as disclosed above. Bove, JR teaches wherein the target charging time is substantially the same as the total play length (Par.52 and 54). Claims 5 and 12: Bove, JR. teaches the limitations of claims 1 and 8 as disclosed above. Bove, JR teaches wherein the total play length is based on the target charging time (Par.50). Claim 15: Bove. JR. teaches a computer-implemented method (Fig.3) comprising: computing a target charging time to charge a battery (116) (Fig.1) of an electric vehicle (110) (Par.49) (Fig.3, 302); computing a total play length of one or more media items (Par.50); synchronizing the target charging time with the total play length (Par.50) (Fig.3, 304); and playing the one or more media items in the electric vehicle (110) while the battery (116) of the electric vehicle (110) is being charged (Par.51) (Fig.3, 306). Claim 16: Bove, JR. teaches the limitations of claim 15 as disclosed above. Bove, JR teaches wherein the one or more media items are associated with one or more of movie media items and interactive gaming media items (Par.52). Claim 17: Bove, JR. teaches the limitations of claim 15 as disclosed above. Bove, JR teaches wherein the target charging time is substantially the same as the total play length (Par.52 and 54). Claim 19: Bove, JR. teaches the limitations of claim 15 as disclosed above. Bove, JR teaches wherein the total play length is based on the target charging time (Par.50) . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-22-aia AIA Claim s 4, 11 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bove, JR. et al. (US 2024/0190289) as applied to claim s 1, 8 and 15 above, and further in view of Meyer et al. (US 2022/0379765) . Claims 4, 11 and 18: Bove, JR. teaches the limitations of claims 1, 8 and 15 as disclosed above. Bove, JR wherein the target charging time is based on the total play length. Meyer teaches computing a target charging time to charge a battery of an electric vehicle based on a total play length of one or more media items (Par.7; First charge time based on a user watching a movie.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have had the teachings of Meyer in the system of Bove, JR. to have had estimated the charging time to more efficiently provide services to electric vehicles and prevent unnecessary fast charging rates, resulting in prolonged lifespan of the vehicle’s battery (Par.7) . 07-22-aia AIA Claim s 6-7, 13-14 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bove, JR. et al. (US 2024/0190289) as applied to claim s 1, 8 and 15 above, and further in view of Lee et al. (US 2017/0246961) . Claims 6, 13 and 20: Bove, JR. teaches the limitations of claims 1, 8 and 15 as disclosed above. Bove, JR teaches wherein the logic when executed is further operable to cause the one or more processors to perform operations comprising controlling one or more charging parameters at an electric vehicle charging station based one or more of the target charging time and the total play length. Lee teaches a logic that when executed is operable to cause one or more processors (302) (Fig.3) to perform operations comprising controlling one or more charging parameters at an electric vehicle charging station based on a target charging time (Par.25, 53 and 66). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have had the teachings of Lee in the system of Bove, JR. to have had optimized a charging time (Par.67). Claims 7 and 14: Bove, JR. teaches the limitations of claims 1 and 8 as disclosed above. Bove, JR teaches wherein the logic when executed is further operable to cause the one or more processors (216) to perform operations comprising playing the one or more media items in the electric vehicle (110) while the battery (116) of the electric vehicle (110) is being charged (Par.51) (Fig.1; Media being displayed in device 102a). Bove, JR. does not explicitly teach while the electric vehicle is parked in an enclosed area. Lee discloses a battery of an electric vehicle (118) is charged while parked in an enclosed area (Par.41; Parking garage). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have had the teachings of Lee in the system of Bove, JR. to have had charged vehicles at different locations (Par.41) thereby increasing charger use and protecting the vehicle from the elements while charging. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHALI ALEJANDRA TORRES RUIZ whose telephone number is (571)270-1262. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:00am-6:00pm. Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Julian D Huffman can be reached at 571-272-2147. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /JOHALI A TORRES RUIZ/Examiner, Art Unit 2859 /JULIAN D HUFFMAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2859 Application/Control Number: 18/227,706 Page 2 Art Unit: 2859 Application/Control Number: 18/227,706 Page 3 Art Unit: 2859 Application/Control Number: 18/227,706 Page 4 Art Unit: 2859 Application/Control Number: 18/227,706 Page 5 Art Unit: 2859 Application/Control Number: 18/227,706 Page 6 Art Unit: 2859 Application/Control Number: 18/227,706 Page 7 Art Unit: 2859 Application/Control Number: 18/227,706 Page 8 Art Unit: 2859 Application/Control Number: 18/227,706 Page 9 Art Unit: 2859 Application/Control Number: 18/227,706 Page 10 Art Unit: 2859
Prosecution Insights