DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are currently presented for examination.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on August 29, 2023 has been considered by the Examiner.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: Paragraph [0029] says that the first end is 304 and the second end is 306. Later it says that both are 304. It also says that the virtual charger is 301, but later it says that the electrical outlet is 301.
Appropriate correction is required.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: Paragraphs [0030] and [0032] say that the virtual charger is 103, but earlier it is labeled as 301; 103 is an electrical outlet.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim recites “are operable to removably coupled” should read “are operable to be removably coupled”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim recites “wiring system” when it is not the first recitation. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim recites “are operable to removably coupled” should read “are operable to be removably coupled”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Regarding claims 1-20, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. abstract idea) without anything significantly more.
Step 1: Claims 1-11 are directed to a method, which is a process, which is a statutory category of invention. Claims 12-20 are directed to a system, which is a machine, which is a statutory category of invention. Therefore, claims 1-20 are directed to patent eligible categories of invention.
Step 2A, Prong 1: Claims 1and 12 recite the abstract idea of generating a virtual representation of an electric vehicle charger, receiving user input to operate the virtual representation, and updating the virtual representation based on the user input, which constitutes a mental process because these steps may be practically performed in the human mind or with the aid of pen and paper. The limitation of “generating a virtual charger representing a charger superimposed on a real-world environment comprising a wiring system;” covers mentally visualizing the placement of a charger within a real-world environment. The limitation of “updating the virtual charger superimposed on the real-world environment based on the operation;” covers mentally modifying the representation of the charger in response to the user interaction. The limitation of “a connector and a charging cable having a first end connected to the connector and a second end connected to the wiring system” merely describes the content of the virtual model and does not impose any meaningful limitation on the abstract idea. Thus, the claims recite the abstract idea of a mental process performed in the human mind, or with the aid of pencil and paper.
Dependent claims 2-11 and 13-30 further narrow the abstract ideas, identified in the independent claims.
Step 2A, Prong 2: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The limitation of “an augmented reality (AR) interface” merely links the abstract idea to a particular technological environment and does not improve the functioning of the AR interface or any other technology. See MPEP 2106.05(h). Further, the limitation in claim 1 and 12 that the virtual charger includes “receiving data responsive to a user interaction using an augmented reality (AR) interface to operate the virtual charger;” covers mere instructions to implement an abstract idea using a computer in its ordinary capacity, or merely uses the computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea. See MPEP (2106.05(f)) Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a mental process) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. (MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)) Therefore, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Dependent claims 2-11 and 13-30 further narrow the abstract ideas, identified in the independent claims, and do not introduce further additional elements for consideration beyond those addressed above.
Step 2B: Claims 1 and 12 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The limitation of “an augmented reality (AR) interface” merely links the abstract idea to a particular technological environment and does not improve the functioning of the AR interface or any other technology. See MPEP 2106.05(h). Further, the limitation in claim 1 and 12 that the virtual charger includes “receiving data responsive to a user interaction using an augmented reality (AR) interface to operate the virtual charger;” covers mere instructions to implement an abstract idea using a computer in its ordinary capacity, or merely uses the computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea. See MPEP (2106.05(f)) Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a mental process) does not amount to significantly more. (MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)) Therefore, the claim as a whole does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, when considered alone or in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As stated in Section I.B. of the December 16, 2014 101 Examination Guidelines, “[t]o be patent-eligible, a claim that is directed to a judicial exception must include additional features to ensure that the claim describes a process or product that applies the exception in a meaningful way, such that it is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.”
The dependent claims include the same abstract ideas recited as recited in the independent claims, and merely incorporate additional details that narrow the abstract ideas and fail to add significantly more to the claims.
Dependent claim 2 is directed to further defining the operation as assembly, disassembly connection, or disconnection, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mental Processes.”
Dependent claim 3 is directed to further defining the wiring system as comprising a first and second electrical outlet with disconnection/connection operations, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mental Processes.”
Dependent claim 4 is directed to further defining the wiring system as comprising an electrical outlet with the second end of the charging cable connected thereto, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mental Processes.”
Dependent claim 5 is directed to further defining virtual charger as comprising a charger hanger with removable coupling, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mental Processes.”
Dependent claim 6 is directed to further defining the wiring system as comprising a breaker panel with AR-based location selection and conduit routing, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mental Processes.”
Dependent claim 7 is directed to further defining compatibility determination, option provision, and voltage upgrade modification plan, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mental Processes.”
Dependent claim 8 is directed to further defining parts list and price quote generation, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mental Processes.”
Dependent claim 9 is directed to further defining a virtual electric vehicle with a charging port, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mental Processes.”
Dependent claim 10 is directed to further defining connector-to-charging port connection, cable arrangement, viability determination, obstacle/restricted area checking, and rearrangement instructions, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mental Processes.”
Dependent claim 11 is directed to further defining the tangible object as a marker, physical model, sensor, wearable, or smartphone, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mental Processes.”
Dependent claim 13 is directed to further defining the operation as assembly, disassembly connection, or disconnection, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mental Processes.”
Dependent claim 14 is directed to further defining the wiring system as comprising a first and second electrical outlet with disconnection/connection operations, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mental Processes.”
Dependent claim 15 is directed to further defining the wiring system as comprising an electrical outlet with the second end of the charging cable connected thereto, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mental Processes.”
Dependent claim 16 is directed to further defining virtual charger as comprising a charger hanger with removable coupling, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mental Processes.”
Dependent claim 17 is directed to further defining the wiring system as comprising a breaker panel with AR-based location selection and conduit routing, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mental Processes.”
Dependent claim 18 is directed to further defining compatibility determination, option provision, and voltage upgrade modification plan, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mental Processes.”
Dependent claim 19 is directed to further defining a virtual electric vehicle with a charging port, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mental Processes.”
Dependent claim 20 is directed to further defining the tangible object as a marker, physical model, sensor, wearable, or smartphone, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mental Processes.”
Accordingly, claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. an abstract idea) without anything significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 1-6, 11-17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Paudice, Free2Move eSolution: Installation and Maintenance of EV Chargers Supported by Augmented Reality (Politecnico di Milano, 2022/2023).
Regarding Claim 1, Paudice anticipates generating a virtual charger representing a charger superimposed on a real-world environment comprising a wiring system” (AR 3D Visualization, wherein a three-dimensional image of the selected virtual object is superimposed onto the physical space so that it appears to be presented at a 1:1 scale [pg 58 bullet 3; Figure 4.3, pg 57])
receiving data responsive to a user interaction using an augmented reality (AR) interface to operate the virtual charger the user can interact with the item displayed in AR by moving and rotating it in space, and then placing it within the scanned area [pg 58, bullet 4].
updating the virtual charger superimposed on the real-world environment based on the operation (the user can interact with the item displayed in AR by moving and rotating it in space, and then placing it within the scanned area [pg 58, bullet 4])
wherein the virtual charger comprises a connector and a charging cable comprising a first end and a second end, the first end operable to be connected to the connector, and the second end operable to be connected to the wiring system.” (cable tracing functionality, which automatically determines the appropriate wiring type for the necessary power load and generates a feasible path between interconnected electrical components, while also allowing the installer to manually adjust that path to circumvent obstructions (pg 58, bullet 6). Additionally, Paudice describes the “EV Inlet” as the physical interface on the vehicle side that establishes the connection between the cable connector and the vehicle’s charging port (pg 12, bullet 3), See also Figure 1.9)
Regarding Claim 2, Paudice anticipates the limitations of claim 1. Paudice also anticipates wherein the operation is an assembly of the virtual charger, a disassembly of the virtual charger, a connection of the virtual charger to the wiring system, or a disconnection of the virtual charger from the wiring system (figures 2.6, 2.10, 2.13-2.15, 3.3, cable tracing routine, which performs the connection of electrical interconnections between charging station and the power infrastructure, and the installation and removal operations associated with those connections (Paudice, PG 58, bullet 6)
Regarding Claim 3, Paudice anticipates the limitation of claim 1. Paudice also anticipates a first electrical outlet and a second electrical outlet, the operation is a disconnection of the virtual charger from the first electrical outlet and a connection of the virtual charger to the second electrical outlet. (Figure 1.11 (pg 14) shows multiple electrical sockets connecting to the virtual charger, demonstrating a configuration with at least a first and second outlet.)
Regarding Claim 4, Paudice anticipates the limitation of claim 1. Paudice also anticipates the wiring system comprises an electrical outlet, wherein the second end of the charging cable is connected to the electrical outlet.(Figures 2.6 and 3.6 (pg 46) shows the charging cable’s wiring connecting to an outlet, which teaches the second cable of the cable being connected to the electrical outlet.)
Regarding Claim 5, Paudice anticipates the limitation of claim 1. Paudice also anticipates the virtual charger further comprises a charger hanger, wherein the connector and the charging cable are operable to removably coupled to the charger hanger.” (Figures 1.11, 3.3 and 3.6 show the virtual charger with a mounting structure that holds the connector and allows the charging cable to be removably coupled. This structure performs the identical function of storing and organizing the connector and cable when not in use.)
Regarding claims 6, Paudice anticipates the limitations of claim 1. Paudice also anticipates a wiring system comprising a breaker panel (Figure 3.6 and 5.6 shows a breaker box attached to the wiring system [pg 46]. Figure 5.5 shows a breaker panel in AR [pg 95].);
wherein the method further comprises receiving data responsive to the user interaction using the AR interface to select a charger location in the real-world environment (“The first planning operations consist of positioning the ePosts. The Fast Chargers appear in AR as 3D objects on a 1:1 scale. These can be rotated and translated until they are positioned correctly,” [pg 88 p 2].and Section 5.5)
generating an arrangement of an electrical conduit routed from the virtual charger to the breaker panel, the electric conduit comprising a selection from a surface-mount conduit, a concealed conduit, and a combination thereof (“The connection between interconnected electrical components is done automatically by identifying the appropriate cable type for the required power and tracing a possible path,” [pg 58 blt 6]. Figure 2.6);
and superimposing the electrical conduit in the real-world environment (“The tool automatically calculates cable lengths and distances between placed components, displaying them live in augmented reality,” [pg 58 blt 7].).
Regarding claim 11, Paudice anticipates the limitations of claim 1. Paudice also anticipates the AR interface comprises a tangible object, wherein the tangible object is a marker, a physical model, a sensor, a wearable motion-tracking device, or a smartphone (Figure 4.3 shows a tablet where the AR interface is operated [pg 57].).
Regarding claim 12, it is the system embodiment of claim 1 with similar limitations to claim 1, and is such rejected using the same reasoning found in claim 1.
Regarding claim 13, it is the system embodiment of claim 2 with similar limitations to claim 2, and is such rejected using the same reasoning found in claim 2.
Regarding claim 14, it is the system embodiment of claim 3 with similar limitations to claim 3, and is such rejected using the same reasoning found in claim 3.
Regarding claim 15, it is the system embodiment of claim 4 with similar limitations to claim 4, and is such rejected using the same reasoning found in claim 4.
Regarding claim 16, it is the system embodiment of claim 5 with similar limitations to claim 5, and is such rejected using the same reasoning found in claim 5.
Regarding claim 17, it is the system embodiment of claim 6 with similar limitations to claim 6, and is such rejected using the same reasoning found in claim 6.
Regarding claim 20, it is the system embodiment of claim 11 with similar limitations to claim 11, and is such rejected using the same reasoning found in claim 11.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 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 7, 8 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paudice in view of Sastry et al. in “Design and Demonstration of a Smart Charging System for Plug-in Electric Vehicles” published by IEEE Transportation Electrification Conference & Expo (hereinafter Sastry).
Regarding claim 7, Paudice anticipates the limitations of claims 1. Paudice does not explicitly teach determining whether the charger is compatible with the wiring system; after determining the charger is not compatible with the wiring system, providing an option for a different charger or a modification plan of the wiring system; and wherein the modification plan of the wiring system comprises installing an electric outlet having a higher volt value than a volt value of the wiring system.
Sastry teaches determining whether the charger is compatible with the wiring system (By plugging the charger into the outlet, the charger is either compatible or incompatible. “Our system features two independent power flow paths for Level 1 and Level 2 charging (defined in the SAE J1772 standard), and therefore presents the user with two pairs of electrical receptacles to connect to [27]. To perform Level 1 charging at 120 V and up to 15 A, the user must connect the male NEMA 5-15 receptacle to a standard (US) wall outlet via an extension cord, and plug their EV’s charging cable into the female NEMA 5-15 receptacle. To perform Level 2 charging at 240 V and up to 30 A, the user must utilize the pair of NEMA 14-30 receptacles instead, and connect to a standard (US) dryer outlet.” [Section III (A)]; By hooking up the cable into the outlet and charging the vehicle, the charger is compatible with the wiring system, in this case level 1; see attached figures);
PNG
media_image1.png
590
887
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
442
333
media_image2.png
Greyscale
after determining the charger is not compatible with the wiring system, providing an option for a different charger or a modification plan of the wiring system ([Section III (A)] the level 2 charger is not compatible with the NEMA 5-15 outlet, and an option for a level two charger is provided with a wiring system modification to a NEMA 14-30 outlet that can be used with the level 2 charger; See attached figures)
and wherein the modification plan of the wiring system comprises installing an electric outlet having a higher volt value than a volt value of the wiring system ([Section III (A)] a NEMA 14-30 outlet is installed with a voltage of 240 which is higher than the 120V voltage of the NEMA 5-15 outlet; See attached figures).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Paudice with the teachings of Sastry in order to determine the appropriate wiring, outlets, and modifications thereof necessary, as both references deal with outlet capabilities of EV’s. The benefit of doing so is that it allows users to see the development and demonstration of a vehicle-external smart charging system for a plug-in electric vehicle that can help manage grid impacts. (Sastry, Section V)
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Paudice and Sastry teach the limitations of claim 7. Paudice also teaches generating a parts list of the modification plan of the wiring system and a price quote for the charger and the parts list of the modification plan (“Provide[s] a quote for the installation costs that combines data from the Bill of Materials of selected elements and price list database. Additionally, the quotation will consider the length and type of cables required for the installation, an estimate of the length of excavation works, and the associated costs,” [pg 59 blt 4]).
Regarding claim 18, it is the system embodiment of claim 7 with similar limitations to claim 7, and is such rejected using the same reasoning found in claim 7.
Claims 9, 10 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paudice in view of arsa35. “Ev Charging Station Model - Turbosquid 1209098.” TurboSquid, Oct. 2017 (hereinafter arsa35).
Regarding claim 9, Paudice anticipates the limitations of claim 1. Paudice does not explicitly teach generating a virtual electric vehicle superimposed on the real-world environment, wherein the virtual electric vehicle comprises a charging port.
Arsa35 teaches generating a virtual electric vehicle superimposed on the real-world environment, wherein the virtual electric vehicle comprises a charging port (The figure below shows an electric vehicle connected to a charging port on a real-world environment.)
PNG
media_image3.png
758
1402
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Paudice with the teachings of arsa35 in order to generate an electric vehicle in an augmented reality environment, as both references deal with AR. The benefit of doing so is that it allows users to see the EV placed in the AR alongside the charger and other equipment.
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Paudice and arsa35 teaches the limitations of claim 9. Paudice also teaches connecting the connector with the charging port (“EV Connector: The device attached to the EVSE cable that provides the physical connection between the EVSE and the EV,” [pg 12 blt 2] Figures 1.9, 1.11 Section 2-2.1.);
generating an arrangement of the charging cable connecting to the connector at the first end and connecting to the wiring system at the second end (“The connection between interconnected electrical components is done automatically by identifying the appropriate cable type for the required power and tracing a possible path,” pg 58 blt 6, Section 4.1.1, Figures 1.9, 1.11 Section 2-2.1.);
determining whether the arrangement of the charging cable is viable such that the charging cable connects the connector and the wiring system without across an obstacle or a restricted area in the real-world environment (“The 3D planner can provide alerts or even prevent further progress if the placement of objects does not comply with physical or electrical constraints. For example, if a charging point is positioned near an obstacle, if the spacing between two components does not meet the minimum clearance limits around the elements, or if two interconnected electrical components are too far apart,” [pg 58 blt 5] Section 4.1.1, Figures 1.9, 1.11 Section 2-2.1 and 5.1.1);
and after determining the arrangement of the charging cable is not viable, instructing the user to interact with the AR interface to rearrange the virtual charger or the virtual electric vehicle (“Moving the power equipment updates the distance and path of the cables. The power components, like the chargers, have safety distances to be respected for correct positioning, highlighted by a colored area around them,” Page 58, [pg 88-89 p2].).
Regarding claim 19, it is the system embodiment of claims 9 and 10 with similar limitations to claims 9 and 10, and is such rejected using the same reasoning found in claims 9 and 10.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Andersen EV launches new home charger augmented reality tool. (2023, March 23): Also teaches the AR visualization of a charger on the wall of a user.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL COCCHI whose telephone number is (469)295-9079. The examiner can normally be reached 7:15 am - 5:15 pm CT Monday - Thursday.
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, Ryan Pitaro can be reached at 571-272-4071. 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.
/MICHAEL EDWARD COCCHI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2188
Prosecution Insights