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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 3-5 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 3 and 4 recite “be incomplete” which the examiner believes is a typographical error and should read “is incomplete”, likewise, claim 5 recites “be completed” which the examiner believes is a typographical error and should read “is completed”. 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.
Claims 1-4 and 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract ideas (mental processes and organizing human activity) without significantly more.
Step 1
Each of claims 1-4 and 6-8 fall within one of the four statutory categories. See MPEP 2106.03. Claims 1-4 and 6 fall within the category of machine. Claim 7 falls within the category of process. Claim 8 falls within the category of manufacture.
Step 2A Prong 1
The exemplary claims are directed to the abstract ideas of mental processes and organizing human activity along with generic components as described below for each claim.
Step 2A Prong 2
Claims 1-4 and 6-8 do not include additional elements (when considered individually, as an ordered combination, and/or within the claim as a whole) that are sufficient to integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application. The additional elements are represented by the following limitations:
Claim 1:
“A charging management system comprising: an acquirer configured to acquire connection status information indicating whether a charging connector of a charger is connected to a socket of an electric vehicle”, relates to a mental process, a person can acquire/determine a connection status, along with generic components (connector, charger, socket) which do not incorporate it into a practical application.
“a decider configured to determine, depending on whether the connection status information acquired by the acquirer indicates that the charging connector is connected to the socket, whether return of the electric vehicle from a user is completed”, which relates to mental process, a person can determine whether a vehicle return is complete and connected to a charger.
Claim 2:
“the acquirer is configured to acquire return information indicating that the user has returned the electric vehicle”, a mental process, a person can acquire information.
“the decider is configured to, when the acquirer acquires the return information, determine, based on the connection status information acquired by the acquirer, whether the return of the electric vehicle from the user is completed”, which relates to a mental process, a person can determine if a vehicle is returned.
Claim 3:
“a notifier configured to, when the decider decides that the return of the electric vehicle from the user be incomplete, perform processing to transmit a return incomplete, informing that the charging connector is not connected to the socket, to a terminal device owned by the user”, a human activity, a person can communicate information.
Claim 4:
“the notifier is configured to, when the decider decides that the return of the electric vehicle from the user be incomplete, perform processing to transmit a connection request notification, requesting that the charging connector be connected to the socket, to a terminal device owned by a person who is sharing the electric vehicle with, and is different from, the user”, a human activity, a person can communicate information.
Claim 6:
“A charging system comprising: the charging management system of claim 1; and the charger”, see claim 1 reasoning, and a charger is a generic component and does not incorporate it into a practical application.
Claim 7:
“A charging management method comprising: an acquisition step including acquiring connection status information indicating whether a charging connector of a charger is connected to a socket of an electric vehicle”, a mental process, a person can acquire information and determine if a vehicle is connected to a charger.
“a decision step including determining, depending on whether the connection status information acquired in the acquisition step indicates that the charging connector is connected to the socket, whether return of the electric vehicle from a user is completed”, a mental process, a person can decide/determine information.
Claim 8:
“A non-transitory storage medium storing a program which is designed to cause one or more processors to perform the charging management method of claim 7”, which recites instructions that cause one or more processors (generic components) to perform the abstract idea.
In view of the above, the additional elements individually do not provide a practical application of the abstract idea. Furthermore, the additional elements in combination amount to generic system components performing instructions to implement the abstract idea. Therefore, these elements in combination do not provide a practical application. The combination of additional elements does no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, i.e. an environment of a vehicle charging system and user terminals, and for this additional reason, the combination of additional elements do not provide a practical application of the abstract idea.
Claim 5 is eligible due to the practical application of “control the charger to make the charger charge the electric vehicle following a charging schedule”.
Step 2B
Claims 1-4 and 6-8 do not include additional elements when considered individually and/or as an ordered combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract ideas. The reasons for reaching this conclusion are substantially the same as the reasons given above in Step 2A Prong 2. Those reasons are not repeated in this section for the sake of brevity.
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.
Claims 1-3 and 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cho US 20140207498.
With regards to claims 1, 6, and 7 Cho discloses a charging management system [Fig 1 and ¶43 “electric vehicle sharing service system 16 may perform a sharing service reservation management, a sharing service membership management, an electric vehicle utilization management, an electric vehicle management, an electric vehicle return management, an electric vehicle charging management”] comprising:
an acquirer configured to acquire connection status information indicating whether a charging connector of a charger is connected to a socket of an electric vehicle [Fig 1 disclosing a charging connector, a charger, a socket and an electric vehicle, Fig 2 Electric Charger Connection Determination Unit 221, Fig 5b steps S530-536 which involves connection information, and ¶s 11-13 “The determining the second return condition may include checking a charging connection between the electric vehicle and an electric charger. The determining the second return condition may include receiving charging connection information from at least one of the electric vehicle terminal of the electric vehicle and the electric charger connected to the electric vehicle, and determining whether the charging connection is established, based on the received charging connection information. The charging connection may be established according to at least one of a wired charging scheme and a wireless charging scheme”; and
a decider configured to determine, depending on whether the connection status information acquired by the acquirer indicates that the charging connector is connected to the socket, whether return of the electric vehicle from a user is completed [Fig 5b steps S530-536, fig 5c step 550 “return approval message”, Fig 6a step S632-S638, and ¶11-12 above].
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected for similar reasons as claim 1 above, a detailed discussion is avoided for brevity.
With regards to claim 2 Cho discloses the charging management system of claim 1, wherein the acquirer is configured to acquire return information indicating that the user has returned the electric vehicle [Fig 5a S500 “Receive a user input for an electric vehicle return request”], and
the decider is configured to, when the acquirer acquires the return information, determine, based on the connection status information acquired by the acquirer, whether the return of the electric vehicle from the user is completed [Fig 5b S536-S546 disclosing return conditions and a return completion message].
With regards to claim 3 Cho discloses the charging management system of claim 1, comprising a notifier configured to, when the decider decides that the return of the electric vehicle from the user be incomplete [Fig 5a S506 “Is a first return condition satisfied?” if No then S508 “return failure message”],
perform processing to transmit a return incomplete, informing that the charging connector is not connected to the socket, to a terminal device owned by the user [Fig 6a S632 “Is a second return condition satisfied” if No then S634 “connection guide message” which goes to the User Equipment 102].
With regards to claim 5 Cho discloses the charging management system of claim 1, comprising a controller [Fig 3 Control processor 302] configured to,
when the decider decides that the return of the electric vehicle from the user be completed [¶124 “FIG. 8 illustrates a method of performing an electric charging reservation for an electric vehicle to be returned”],
control the charger to make the charger charge the electric vehicle following a charging schedule [¶125 “Referring to FIG. 8, at steps S800 through S804, electric vehicle sharing service system 16 may in real time or periodically collect ‘charging related information’ from a plurality of electric chargers (e.g., electric chargers 14 a, 14 b, . . . , 14 n), and manage the collected information. Herein, the charging related information may include information on an electric charger state (e.g., whether an electric charger is properly operated, etc.) and an electric charging schedule associated with a corresponding electric charger”].
With regards to claim 8 Cho discloses a non-transitory storage medium storing a program [¶138 “The present invention can also be embodied in the form of program code embodied in tangible media, non-transitory media, such as magnetic recording media, optical recording media, solid state memory, floppy diskettes, CD-ROMs, hard drives, or any other machine-readable storage medium”] which is designed to cause one or more processors [Fig 2 processors 20 and 22] to perform the charging management method of claim 7.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho US 20140207498 in view of Penilla et al. US 20180025328.
With regards to claim 4 Cho discloses the charging management system of claim 3, wherein the notifier is configured to, when the decider decides that the return of the electric vehicle from the user be incomplete, perform processing to transmit a connection request notification, requesting that the charging connector be connected to the socket [See rejection of claim 3 Figs 5a and 6a and ¶62 “Communication processor 301 may transmit or receive signals, messages, information, and/or data required for performing the present embodiment, in connection with at least one of user equipment 102 (or a corresponding user (e.g., 10)), electric vehicle sharing service system 16, electric charger 14, and electric vehicle 12” where the “corresponding user” reasonably reads on a person who is sharing the electric vehicle].
Cho fails to disclose to a terminal device owned by a person who is sharing the electric vehicle with, and is different from, the user.
However, Penilla discloses to a terminal device owned by a person who is sharing the electric vehicle with, and is different from, the user [¶74 “the vehicle can be loaned to a child of driving age (under 21/18 years of age), and the child can be provided with restricted use of the vehicle. When the child exceeds or does not follow the restrictions of the vehicle, automatic notifications can be provided to the user that is the administrator of the vehicle. The notifications can be by cell phone, smartphone, tablet computer, mobile device, text messages, phone calls, commendations of phone calls and text, audio messages, audible sounds, vibrations, and commendations thereof” where the child would be the current user and the administrator would be other/secondary user receiving the notification which reasonably reads on the claim of a user (who is someone other than the current driver/operator) receiving a notification related to the vehicle].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the systems of Cho with Penilla to provide notifications of certain events related to the vehicle to different users of the vehicle in order to improve user awareness and convenience and to enhance safety and reliability of the vehicle.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Nathan Instone whose telephone number is (571)272-1563. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4 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, 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.
/NATHAN J INSTONE/Examiner, Art Unit 2859
/JULIAN D HUFFMAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2859