DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s remarks have been fully considered.
Examiner acknowledges a formatting error in the previous rejection, that the limitation of “premium fees approved by the users of the vehicles, respectively, for advancing in the charging sequence,” should have been listed among the limitations not explicitly taught by Dudar. Fortunately, the limitation was clearly addressed in the citation of the secondary reference Zhao.
Regarding the limitation of the premium fee for advancing in the charging sequence, Applicant asserts that this is distinct from the ‘cut in line’ extra service fee of Zhao.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Per Zhao [0050]-[0051], “If a user sends the system a “cut in line” request… the charging routing re-executes and may make an adjustment to the sequence. For the ‘cut in line’ request, there may be a fee charged to the user, with the amount dependent on the length of the expected parking time.”
The Examiner does not see a meaningful distinction between making a “cut in line” request and paying the resulting fee, and “a premium fee… for advancing in the charging sequence.” Applicant’s arguments do not appear to explain why they are different except to simply state that they are.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 4-7, 10-15 and 19-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dudar (US 20210370794 A1) in view of Zhao et al. (US 20160352113 A1) and Lang et al. (US 20240025285 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Dudar teaches: A vehicle charging control system comprising:
a charging location including N parking locations for vehicles and M vehicle chargers, where N is an integer greater than or equal to two and M is an integer less than N and greater than or equal to 1; and (Examiner interprets this limitation to simply mean that there are more parking spaces than there are charging stations. Examiner asserts that this would obviously be the case as there would be no need to determine a charging order if there were as many chargers as there were spaces for vehicles, and it is less expensive to add parking spaces to a charging station than to add additional chargers. See Dudar Fig 6 and throughout for queues of vehicles awaiting charging stations, showing more vehicles parked and waiting for the chargers than there are chargers.)
a charging control module configured to set a charging sequence for charging vehicles at the charging location based on… and (c) at least one of: (See Dudar Fig. 3 and [0036] for assigning queue positions to vehicles arriving at a charging station)
(d) arrival times of the vehicles, respectively, to the charging location; (See Dudar Fig. 3 and [0036] for execution of the process for vehicle presumed to arrive at the charging station around the same time, indicating that vehicles which arrived earlier than that time will be given priority)
(e) expected departure times of the vehicles, respectively, from the charging location; (See Dudar Fig. 3 and [0037] and elsewhere for sorting of vehicles based on departure time)
(f) charge levels of batteries of the vehicles, respectively, at arrival to the charging location; (See Dudar Fig. 3 and [0042] and elsewhere for sorting of vehicles charge characteristics including state of charge, capacity, and charging rate)
(g) target charge levels of the batteries of the vehicles, respectively, at departure from the charging location; (See Dudar Fig. 3 and [0042] and elsewhere for sorting of vehicles charge characteristics including charging time, which will vary depending on total charge required) and
wherein the charging control module is further configured to at least one of:
move the vehicles to locations of the M vehicle chargers according to the charging sequence …(See Dudar [0063]-[0065] and [0072] for instructions sent to move vehicles, which may be autonomous, based on priority)
Dudar does not explicitly teach:
…(a) credits of users of the vehicles, respectively, provided to the users in response to the users respectively accepting requests to be delayed in charging sequences, (b) premium fees approved by the users of the vehicles, respectively, for advancing in the charging sequence…
…and actuate the vehicle chargers to electrically connect the vehicle chargers to the vehicle; and
move the vehicle chargers to locations of the N vehicles according to the charging sequence and actuate the vehicle chargers to electrically connect the vehicle chargers to the vehicles.
Lang teaches a method of charging electric vehicles (See Lang [0003]) including determining the order in which to charge them, including prioritizing vehicles based on current charge levels, vehicle/owner status, weather, and a number of credits, which may be earned by voluntarily forgoing in-motion charging at another time in the past (See Lang [0032]).
Zhao teaches a method of charging electric vehicles including determining a charging order based on vehicle arrival time, charge level, average parking time, departure time, and credit points, and moving the charging apparatus to the vehicle and connecting it to the vehicle (See Zhao [0005]-[0006]. See [0049]-[0051] for “cut in line” request and resulting fee, “extending parking” offer in the case that a user vehicle will be parked for a longer than normal period of time and therefore does not need high-priority charging, and offering the user credits in this situation.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the application, to modify the system of Dudar to incorporate credits in exchange for delayed/postponed service, as taught in Lang and Zhao, in order to encourage users who can tolerate a delay to accept one, fees for accelerated service as taught in Zhao in order to generated additional revenue from customers that are in a hurry, and to include the movable and self-connecting charging apparatus of Zhao in order to improve the efficiency of the vehicle charging. In addition, moving the charger to the vehicles rather than the vehicles to the charger allows for changes in the order in which the vehicles are changed without needing to rearrange the vehicles.
Regarding claim 4, modified Dudar teaches: The vehicle charging control system of claim 1 wherein the charging control module is configured to determine the charging sequence based on at least three of (d)-(g). (See Claim 1 where Dudar teaches (d)-(g))
Regarding claim 5, modified Dudar teaches: The vehicle charging control system of claim 1 wherein the charging control module is configured to determine the charging sequence based on all of (d)-(g). (See Claim 1 where Dudar teaches (d)-(g))
Regarding claim 6, modified Dudar teaches: The vehicle charging control system of claim 1 wherein the charging control module is configured to advance a time for starting charging of one of the vehicles in the charging sequence when the expected departure time of the vehicle is before the expected departure times of the other vehicles. (See Dudar Fig. 3 and [0038] and elsewhere for sorting of vehicles based on departure time, sorted soonest to latest or latest to soonest)
Regarding claim 7, modified Dudar teaches: The vehicle charging control system of claim 1 wherein the charging control module is configured to delay a time for starting charging of one of the vehicles in the charging sequence when the expected departure time of the vehicle is after the expected departure times of the other vehicles. (See Dudar Fig. 3 and [0038] and elsewhere for sorting of vehicles based on departure time, sorted soonest to latest or latest to soonest)
Regarding claim 10, modified Dudar teaches: The vehicle charging control system of claim 1 wherein the charging control module is configured to receive (a) and (b) from mobile devices of users of the vehicles, respectively, via a network. (See Zhao [0042] for user input through a smartphone, see [0049]-[0051] for “cut in line” and “extending parking” requests and offers based on user input.)
Regarding claim 11, modified Dudar teaches: The vehicle charging control system of claim 1 wherein the charging control module is configured to advance a time for starting charging of one of the vehicles in the charging sequence in response to receipt of user input indicative of an acceptance by a user associated with the one of the vehicles of use of a number of the credits of the user. (See Zhao [0049]-[0051] for “cut in line” and “extending parking” requests and offers based on user input. See [0045] for credits related to fee payments.)
Regarding claim 12, modified Dudar teaches: The vehicle charging control system of claim 1 wherein the charging control module is configured to advance a time for starting charging of one of the vehicles in the charging sequence in response to receipt of user input indicative of an acceptance by a user associated with the one of the vehicles for payment of a fee for the advancement. (See Zhao [0049]-[0051] for “cut in line” and “extending parking” requests and offers based on user input)
Regarding claim 13, modified Dudar teaches: The vehicle charging control system of claim 1 wherein the vehicles are electric vehicles. (See Dudar [0020] and elsewhere for electric vehicle having a battery)
Regarding claim 14, modified Dudar teaches: The vehicle charging control system of claim 1 wherein the vehicles are each at least partially autonomous. (See Dudar Fig. 1A and [0014] for autonomous vehicle)
Regarding claim 15, modified Dudar teaches: The vehicle charging system of claim 1 wherein (d) the target charge levels of the batteries of the vehicles, respectively, at departure from the charging location are fixed predetermined values. (See Dudar Fig. 3 and [0042] and elsewhere for sorting of vehicles charge characteristics including state of charge, capacity, and charging rate. A full charge is considered a fixed, predetermined value.)
Regarding claim 16, modified Dudar teaches: The vehicle charging system of claim 1 wherein (g) the target charge levels of the batteries of the vehicles, respectively, at departure from the charging location are set based on user input from mobile devices associated with the vehicles, respectively. (See Zhao [0006] for order based on time required to reach target charge level.)
Regarding claim 19, modified Dudar teaches: The vehicle charging system of claim 1 wherein the charging control module is configured to receive the (e) expected departure times of the vehicles, respectively, from the charging location from mobile devices of users associated with the vehicles, respectively. (See Zhao [0073] for expected departure time based on historical data or user input)
Regarding claim 20, the claim is directed to a method for operating the vehicle charging control system of claim 1 and is rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claims 21-22, the claims modify claim 20 to increase the required number of optional limitations (d)-(g) from 1 to 3 or 5, respectively. Limitations (d)-(g) are taught by Dudar (See claim 1 above). Therefore, as all limitations (d)-(g) are taught by modified Dudar, claims 21-22 are taught by modified Dudar.
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dudar (US 20210370794 A1) in view of Zhao et al. (US 20160352113 A1) and Lang et al. (US 20240025285 A1) and Zhang et al. (US 20240181917 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Dudar in view of Zhao and Lang teaches: The vehicle charging control system of claim 1
Dudar in view of Zhao and Lang does not explicitly teach: wherein the charging control module is configured to advance a time for starting charging of one of the vehicles in the charging sequence when the charge level of the vehicle is less than the charge levels of the other vehicles.
However, Zhang teaches a method for determining an order for charging electric vehicles (See Zhang [0046]-[0049]) wherein priority is given to vehicles with a lower state of charge (See Zhang [0047]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the application, to modify the charging system of Dudar in view of Zhao and Lang to prioritize vehicles with lower states of charge, as taught in Zhang, in order to prioritize vehicles in greatest need of charging.
Regarding claim 9, Dudar in view of Zhao and Lang teaches: The vehicle charging control system of claim 1
Dudar in view of Zhao and Lang does not explicitly teach: wherein the charging control module is configured to delay a time for starting charging of one of the vehicles in the charging sequence when the charge level of the vehicle is greater than the charge levels of the other vehicles.
However, Zhang teaches a method for determining an order for charging electric vehicles (See Zhang [0046]-[0049]) wherein priority is given to vehicles with a lower state of charge (See Zhang [0047]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the application, to modify the charging system of Dudar in view of Zhao and Lang to prioritize vehicles with lower states of charge, as taught in Zhang, in order to prioritize vehicles in greatest need of charging.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dudar (US 20210370794 A1) in view of Zhao et al. (US 20160352113 A1) and Lang et al. (US 20240025285 A1) and Overfield (US 20240092209 A1).
Regarding claim 16, Dudar in view of Zhao and Lang teaches: The vehicle charging system of claim 1,
Dudar in view of Zhao and Lang does not explicitly teach: wherein (f) the target charge levels of the batteries of the vehicles, respectively, at departure from the charging location are set based on user input from mobile devices associated with the vehicles, respectively.
Examiner notes that Zhao teaches a user communicating a charge request via their mobile device, and teaches a target charge level, but does not explicitly teach the target charge level being set by the user.
Overfield teaches a system for scheduling the charging of electric vehicles at a charging facility (See Overfield [0002]) wherein the charging facility can communicate with a mobile device associated with a vehicle to receive charging parameters including amount of time or requested charge level (See Overfield [0054] for communication with vehicle or mobile device and requested charge amount)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the application, to modify the charging system of Dudar in view of Zhao and Lang to include the communication with a user mobile device, as taught in Overfield, in order to improve the service provided to the user by allowing the user to specify the amount of charge provided to the vehicle.
Claims 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dudar (US 20210370794 A1) in view of Zhao et al. (US 20160352113 A1) and Lang et al. (US 20240025285 A1) and Fukubayashi et al. (US 20210184479 A1).
Regarding claim 17, Dudar in view of Zhao and Lang teaches: The vehicle charging system of claim 1 wherein the charging control module is configured to determine the (e) expected departure times of the vehicles, … (See Zhao [0073] and elsewhere for expected departure time based on historical data or user input.)
Dudar in view of Zhao and Lang does not explicitly teach:
…respectively, from the charging location based on average parking periods of the vehicles, respectively, at the charging location.
Examiner notes that Zhao teaches priority based on average parking time based on historical data, and expected departure time based on historical data. While the Examiner considers the correlation between average parking time and expected departure time to be obvious, Zhao does not explicitly teach determining the expected departure time based on the average parking time.
However, Fukubayashi teaches a method of vehicle parking and charging management (See Fukubayashi [0012]-[0014]) which incorporates an expected departure time in determining the charging order of the vehicles (See Fukubayashi [0051]) and where the departure time can be calculated based on the average parking time (See Fukubayashi [0061]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the application, to modify the system of Dudar in view of Zhao and Lang to incorporate a determination of the vehicle departure time based on the average parking time, as taught in Fukubayashi, to provide an additional means of accurately estimating the departure time.
Regarding claim 18, modified Dudar teaches: The vehicle charging system of claim 17 wherein the charging control module is configured to set the expected departure times of the vehicles based on (d) the arrival times of the vehicles, respectively, to the charging location and the average parking periods of the vehicles, respectively, at the charging location. (See Fukubayashi [0061] for determination of departure time based on average parking period. Examiner asserts that the basis of the departure time based on the average parking time is inherently also based on the arrival time, because the arrival time is what the average parking time must be added to in order to determine a departure time.)
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 JACOB KENT BESTEMAN-STREET whose telephone number is (571)272-2501. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 8:00-5:00. 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, Peter Nolan can be reached on 571-270-7016. 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.
/JACOB KENT BESTEMAN-STREET/
Examiner, Art Unit 3661
/PETER D NOLAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3661