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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Page 11, Paras. [0091] – [0093], There are several errors in the drawing element numbers in these three paragraphs. All drawing references should be reviewed and corrected as needed. As an example: Para. [0093], Line 3, “AC output 325” should be --AC output 330--
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 2-4 are objected to because of the following informalities: Each claim must begin with a capital letter and end with a period. Claim 2 does not end in a period.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(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.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Tate, Jr. U.S. PGPub 2010/0274690 A1 (hereinafter Tate’690).
Regarding Claim 20, Tate’690 teaches an electric vehicle (Tate’690, Fig. 1, Element 10; Para. [0009], Line 5) charging method (Tate’690, Para. [0005]) comprising: receiving, on a data interface and from a vehicle (Tate’690, Para. [0011], Lines 17-22, “wireless telematics communications system”), positioning data identifying a position of the vehicle (Tate’690, Paras. [0011] and [0019]) and an identifier identifying the vehicle (Tate’690, Para. [0011], Lines 27-46, “VIN”); automatically associating the vehicle with a charging station of a plurality of electric vehicle charging stations (Tate’690, Fig. 1, Element 24 of charging site 20; Para. [0009], Lines 19-21, “electrical power outlets”) according to the positioning data (Tate’690, Para. [0019]); and causing the associated charging station to charge the electric vehicle upon authentication of the vehicle using the identifier or a derivative thereof (Tate’690, Paras. [0022] – [0023]).
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 1-12 and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tate, Jr. U.S. PGPub 2010/0274690 A1 (hereinafter Tate’690) in view of Tate, Jr. et al. U.S. PGPub 2010/0280675 A1 (hereinafter Tate’675).
Regarding Claim 1, Tate’690 teaches an electrical vehicle charging system (Tate’690, Fig. 1; Para. [0009], Lines 4-8) comprising: a plurality of electric vehicle charging stations (Tate’690, Fig. 1, Element 24 of charging site 20; Para. [0009], Lines 19-21, “electrical power outlets”); a electric vehicle (Tate’690, Fig. 1, Element 10; Para. [0009], Line 5), the electric vehicle including a vehicle module (Tate’690, Fig. 1, Element 19, “CM”; Para. [0011], Lines 14-15, “control module”. Tate’690’s “control module” is illustrated separately from the GPS and NAV modules which in the instant application appear to be part of the claimed “vehicle module”. The CM 19, GPS 15 and NAV 17 of Tate’690 together provide the limitations of the claimed “vehicle module”.), the vehicle module includes a positioning module (Tate’690, Fig. 1, Elements 15 and 17, “GPS” and “NAV”; Para. [0011], Lines 1-4), configured to determine a position of the vehicle (Tate’690, Paras. [0011] and [0019]), and an identifier associated with the vehicle (Tate’690, Para. [0011], Lines 27-46, “VIN”); and one or more remote servers (Tate’690, Fig. 1, Element 40, “Central Access and Billing Server”; Para. [0011], Line 24), coupled to the plurality of electric vehicle charging stations (Tate’690, Fig. 1, Element 24 of charging site 20; Para. [0009], Lines 19-21, “electrical power outlets”), and the vehicle modules (Tate’690, Fig. 1, Element 19, “CM”; Para. [0011], Lines 14-15, “control module”); wherein the one or more remote servers (Tate’690, Fig. 1, Element 40) are configured to: receive positioning data and the identifier from the vehicle (Tate’690, Para. [0011]); associate the vehicle with a charging station of the plurality of electric vehicle charging stations according to the positioning data (Tate’690, Para. [0019]); and cause the associated charging station to charge the electric vehicle upon authentication of the vehicle using the identifier or a derivative thereof (Tate’690, Paras. [0022] – [0023]), but does not explicitly teach a plurality of electric vehicles, each including a vehicle module.
Tate’675, however, teaches a plurality of electric vehicles (Tate’675, Fig. 1, Element 10; Paras. [0022] – [0023]), each of the electric vehicles including a vehicle module (Tate’675, Fig. 1, Element 19, “CM”; Para. [0015], Lines 1-4, “control module”. Tate’675’s “control module” is illustrated separately from the GPS and NAV modules which in the instant application appear to be part of the claimed “vehicle module”. The CM 19, GPS 15 and NAV 17 of Tate’675 together provide the limitations of the claimed “vehicle module”.).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to understand that although Tate’690 does not explicitly teach a plurality of vehicles each with its own vehicle module, Tate’690 would inherently encompass a plurality of electrical vehicles as suggested in paragraph [0026] by sending “acknowledgement confirming the billing” to the operator of a vehicle, Tate’690 is suggesting there are a plurality of users/vehicles. The plurality of vehicles taught by Tate’675, confirming the charging of a plurality of vehicles that can even be done simultaneously, teaches one of the many conventional charging systems for a plurality of vehicles utilized in the art. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to choose based on desirability, one of the many known conventional methods, such as the one taught by Tate’675, to control charging of more than one vehicle within the charging system of Tate’690.
Regarding Claim 2, The combined teaching of the Tate’690 and Tate’675 references discloses the claimed invention as stated above in claim 1. Furthermore, Tata’690 teaches wherein the vehicle modules are at least partly wirelessly coupled to the one or more remote servers (Tate’690, Para. [0011], Lines 17-22, “wireless telematics communications system”)
Regarding Claim 3, The combined teaching of the Tate’690 and Tate’675 references discloses the claimed invention as stated above in claims 2/1. Furthermore, Tata’690 teaches wherein when wireless connectivity with the one or more remote servers is unavailable, the identifier, or a derivative thereof, is provided wirelessly to the charging station for authentication of the vehicle (Tate’690, Para. [0011], Lines 30-45, “short range wireless communications”).
Regarding Claim 4, The combined teaching of the Tate’690 and Tate’675 references discloses the claimed invention as stated above in claims 3/2/1. Furthermore, Tata’690 teaches wherein the charging station authenticates the vehicle by communicating the identifier or derivative to the one or more remote servers for authentication (Tate’690, Paras. [0022] – [0023]).
Regarding Claim 5, The combined teaching of the Tate’690 and Tate’675 references discloses the claimed invention as stated above in claim 1. Furthermore, Tata’690 teaches wherein the central server communicates an outcome of the authentication to the charging station to cause the associated charging station to charge the electric vehicle (Tate’690, Paras. [0022] – [0023]).
Regarding Claim 6, The combined teaching of the Tate’690 and Tate’675 references discloses the claimed invention as stated above in claim 1. Furthermore, Tata’690 teaches wherein the positioning data and the identifier are automatically provided to the server upon coupling of the vehicle to the charging station (Tate’690, Paras. [0022] – [0023]).
Regarding Claim 7, The combined teaching of the Tate’690 and Tate’675 references discloses the claimed invention as stated above in claim 1. Furthermore, Tata’690 teaches wherein the identifier is generated at least in part according to a vehicle identification number (VIN) of the vehicle, or otherwise associated with the VIN of the vehicle (Tate’690, Para. [0011], Lines 27-46, “VIN”).
Regarding Claim 8, The combined teaching of the Tate’690 and Tate’675 references discloses the claimed invention as stated above in claims 7/1. Furthermore, Tata’690 teaches wherein the vehicle module is configured to verify a VIN of the vehicle (Tate’690, Para. [0011]).
Regarding Claim 9, The combined teaching of the Tate’690 and Tate’675 references discloses the claimed invention as stated above in claim 1. Furthermore, Tata’690 teaches wherein the charging station monitors energy used to charge the vehicle, and allocates details of the energy used to an account associated with the vehicle (Tate’690, Fig. 1, Elements 23 and 26; Paras. [0012] – [0013]).
Regarding Claim 10, The combined teaching of the Tate’690 and Tate’675 references discloses the claimed invention as stated above in claim 1. Furthermore, Tata’690 teaches wherein the charging station is configured to receive charging parameters, and charge the vehicle according to charging parameters (Tate’690, Para. [0011]).
Regarding Claim 11, The combined teaching of the Tate’690 and Tate’675 references discloses the claimed invention as stated above in claims 10/1. Furthermore, Tata’690 teaches wherein the charging parameters are defined independently of a state of charge of the vehicle (Tate’690, Para. [0011]).
Regarding Claim 12, The combined teaching of the Tate’690 and Tate’675 references discloses the claimed invention as stated above in claim 1. Furthermore, Tata’690 teaches wherein the positioning module includes a GPS module, configured to identify a position (location) of the vehicle module, and thereby the vehicle (Tate’690, Para. [0011]).
Regarding Claim 17, The combined teaching of the Tate’690 and Tate’675 references discloses the claimed invention as stated above in claim 1. Furthermore, Tata’675 teaches wherein the electric vehicle charging stations include one or more AC charging stations (Tate’675, Para. [0017]).
The combined teaching of the Tate’690 and Tate’675 references discloses the claimed invention except for stating explicitly that the grid is providing AC power to the charging stations. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to understand since it was known in the art that charging systems such as those taught in Tate’690 and Tate’675 being designed to be used almost anywhere so a user can provide electric vehicle charging would most likely be connected to the AC grid, a DC grid is not common.
Regarding Claim 18, The combined teaching of the Tate’690 and Tate’675 references discloses the claimed invention as stated above in claims 17/1. Furthermore, Tata’675 teaches wherein the electric vehicle charging stations comprise substantially entirely AC charging stations (Tate’675, Para. [0017]).
The combined teaching of the Tate’690 and Tate’675 references discloses the claimed invention except for stating explicitly that the grid is providing AC power to the charging stations. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to understand since it was known in the art that charging systems such as those taught in Tate’690 and Tate’675 being designed to be used almost anywhere so a user can provide electric vehicle charging would most likely be connected to the AC grid, a DC grid is not common.
Regarding Claim 19, The combined teaching of the Tate’690 and Tate’675 references discloses the claimed invention as stated above in claim 1. Furthermore, Tata’690 teaches wherein the vehicle module is configured to receive data from the vehicle, and provide the vehicle data to the at least one server (Tate’690, Para. [0011]).
Claims 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tate, Jr. U.S. PGPub 2010/0274690 A1 (hereinafter Tate’690) in view of Tate, Jr. et al. U.S. PGPub 2010/0280675 A1 (hereinafter Tate’675) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Widmer et al. U.S. PGPub 2015/0073642 A1 (hereinafter Widmer).
Regarding Claim 13, The combined teaching of the Tate’690 and Tate’675 references discloses the claimed invention as stated above in claim 1. Furthermore, Tate’690 teaches wherein the positioning module configured to identify a position (location) of the vehicle module, and thereby the vehicle (Tate’690, Para. [0019]), but does not explicitly teach using UWB.
Widmer, however, teaches wherein the positioning module includes an ultra-wideband (UWB) module, configured to identify a position (location) of the vehicle module, and thereby the vehicle (Widmer, Para. [0116], Lines 1-5 and 16-23 and Paras. [0132] – [0134]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to understand that although Tate’690 is silent as to as to whether or not it uses UWB to fine tune the estimated location as taught in Para. [0019], Tate’690 would inherently incorporate some type of conventional technique to assure selection of the correct charging station being used as is commonly understood in the art. The UWB guidance system taught by Widmer, for controlling the charging outlet determination, teaches one of the many conventional techniques utilized in the art for determining an exact location of an electric vehicle. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to choose based on desirability, one of the many known conventional methods, such as the one taught by Widmer, to determine the exact location, thereby the exact charging outlet of Tate’690.
Regarding Claim 14, The combined teaching of the Tate’690, Tate’675 and Widmer references discloses the claimed invention as stated above in claims 13/1, but does not explicitly teach wherein the UWB module communicates with one or more charging stations, or beacons associated therewith, to determine a relative location of the vehicle relative to the one or more charging stations.
Widmer, however, teaches wherein the UWB module communicates with one or more charging stations, or beacons associated therewith, to determine a relative location of the vehicle relative to the one or more charging stations (Widmer, Figs. 24-26; Paras. [0132] – [0134]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to understand that although Tate’690 is silent as to as to whether or not it uses UWB to fine tune the estimated location as taught in Para. [0019], Tate’690 would inherently incorporate some type of conventional technique to assure selection of the correct charging station being used as is commonly understood in the art. The UWB guidance system taught by Widmer, for controlling the charging outlet determination, teaches one of the many conventional techniques utilized in the art for determining an exact location of an electric vehicle. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to choose based on desirability, one of the many known conventional methods, such as the one taught by Widmer, to determine the exact location, thereby the exact charging outlet of Tate’690.
Regarding Claim 15, The combined teaching of the Tate’690, Tate’675 and Widmer references discloses the claimed invention as stated above in claims 13/1, but does not explicitly teach wherein the UWB module is configured to a) determine distance (by time of flight) with reference to a plurality of reference points, and use triangulation to determine a position relative thereto; or b) determine distance and directional data with reference to a reference point to determine a position relative thereto.
Widmer, however, teaches wherein the UWB module is configured to a) determine distance (by time of flight) with reference to a plurality of reference points, and use triangulation to determine a position relative thereto; or b) determine distance and directional data with reference to a reference point to determine a position relative thereto (Widmer, Paras. [0133] – [0134]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to understand that although Tate’690 is silent as to as to whether or not it uses UWB to fine tune the estimated location as taught in Para. [0019], Tate’690 would inherently incorporate some type of conventional technique to assure selection of the correct charging station being used as is commonly understood in the art. The UWB guidance system taught by Widmer, for controlling the charging outlet determination, teaches one of the many conventional techniques utilized in the art for determining an exact location of an electric vehicle. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to choose based on desirability, one of the many known conventional methods, such as the one taught by Widmer, to determine the exact location, thereby the exact charging outlet of Tate’690.
Regarding Claim 16, The combined teaching of the Tate’690 and Tate’675 references discloses the claimed invention as stated above in claim 1. Furthermore, Tate’690 teaches wherein the positioning module includes a combination of a GPS module and another technique to resolve the specific electric power outlet, wherein the GPS module is configured to provide coarse positioning information, which is refined using data another technique (Tate’690, Para. [0019]), but does not explicitly teach using UWB for refining the data.
Widmer, however, teaches wherein the positioning module includes an UWB module, configured to provide positioning information, which is refined using data from the UWB module.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to understand that although Tate’690 is silent as to as to whether or not it uses UWB to fine tune the estimated location as taught in Para. [0019], Tate’690 would inherently incorporate some type of conventional technique to assure selection of the correct charging station being used as is commonly understood in the art. The UWB guidance system taught by Widmer, for controlling the charging outlet determination, teaches one of the many conventional techniques utilized in the art for determining an exact location of an electric vehicle. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to choose based on desirability, one of the many known conventional methods, such as the one taught by Widmer, to determine the exact location, thereby the exact charging outlet of Tate’690.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Andrews, Jr. U.S. PGPub 2014/0266004 teaches an electric vehicle charging system using a remote server to authorize use.
Halker et al. U.S. PGPub 2017/0101024 teaches an electric vehicle charging system with detection and identification of EV and charging station.
Grabar et al. U.S. PGPub 2016/0075249 teaches an electric vehicle charging system with authentication.
Solomon et al. U.S. Patent 8,354,913 teaches an electric vehicle charging system with authorization.
Pudar et al. U.S. Patent 8,912,753 teaches remote power usage management for plug-in vehicles.
Woody et al. U.S. Patent 8,054,048 teaches power grid load management for plug-in vehicles.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JERRY D ROBBINS whose telephone number is (571)272-7585. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00AM - 6:00PM Tuesday-Saturday.
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 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.
/JERRY D ROBBINS/ Examiner, Art Unit 2859