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 Amendment
Acknowledgement is made of the amendment filed on 5/1/2026 in which claims 1, 3-5, and 7 were amended. Claim 2 was cancelled and no new claims were added. The claim objections and 35 USC § 101 rejections have been overcome. Therefore, claims 1 and 3-8 are pending examination below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection as necessitated by the amendment.
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 a processor [fig 2 EV charging management processor 22] configured to perform operations comprising:
acquiring 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
determining, depending on whether the connection status information 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], and
acquiring the return information indicating that the user has returned the electric vehicle [Fig 5a S500 “Receive a user input for an electric vehicle return request”], wherein:
the return information includes return place information indicating a return place chosen from a plurality of prespecified return places by the user using the terminal device when the user returns the electric vehicle [¶76 “When a user wants to return an electric vehicle, the user may park the electric vehicle to be returned, at a predetermined return location (i.e., a return location determined at step S400)” which reasonably reads on the return place information being chosen from a plurality of prespecified return places from the explanation of S400 in ¶66 “The request for an electric vehicle (EV) reservation may include reservation information such as a rental location (i.e., a pick up location, a return location)” where the above reasonably discloses that the user selects a return location, indicating that there are multiple locations to select from],
the connection status information includes information indicating whether the charging connector of the charger installed in the return place identified by the return place information is connected to the socket of the electric vehicle [Fig 5b steps S530-536 which involves connection information, and ¶s 11-13 above],
the determining comprises determining, in response to acquiring the return information
and based on the connection status information, whether the return of the electric vehicle from the user is completed [Fig 5b steps S530-536, fig 5c step 550 “return approval message”, Fig 6a step S632-S638, and ¶11-12 above], and
the operations further comprise controlling, in response to determining that the return of the electric vehicle from the user is completed, the charger to make the charger charge the electric vehicle [¶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”].
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected for similar reasons as claim 1 above, a detailed discussion is avoided for brevity.
2. (Canceled)
With regards to claim 3 Cho discloses, the charging management system of claim 1, wherein
the operations further comprise in response to determining that the return of the electric vehicle from the user is incomplete [Fig 5a S506 “Is a first return condition satisfied?” if No then S508 “return failure message”], notifying a terminal device owned by the user that the charging connector is not connected to the socket [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, wherein
the controlling the charger comprises controlling 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 operations further comprise, in response to determining that the return of the electric vehicle from the user is incomplete, transmitting 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 transmitting, to a terminal device owned by a person who is sharing the electric vehicle with the user, 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
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 Nathaniel 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
Prosecution Insights