CTNF 18/262,358 CTNF 78492 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. This office action is responsive to the application filed 07/20/2023 which claims 1-13 have been presented for examination. The preliminary amendment filed 07/20/2023 is acknowledged. Priority 02-26 AIA Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statements (IDSs) submitted on 01/23/2026 and 07/20/2023 have been considered by the examiner. Specification 06-14 AIA Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure. A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art. If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives. Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps. Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts. 07-29 AIA The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: substitute “specific time frame” with –specific time period – (see the last line of paras. [0005], [0006], and [0007], respectively); and substitute “GPS” with – global positioning system (GPS) -- (see para. [0008], line 7) . Appropriate correction is required. Claim Objections 07-29-01 AIA Claim s 1-13 are objected to because of the following informalities: Re claim 1, substitute “this target” with – the target -- (see step d). Re claim 1, substitute “frame” with -- period -- (see step e). Re claim 2, substitute “this target” with – the target -- (see step d). Re claim 2, substitute “frame” with -- period -- (see step e). Re claim 3, substitute “the specific time frame” with – a specific time period – (see step e). Re claim 5, substitute “claims” with – claim -- (see line 1). Re claim 6, substitute “GPS” with – global positioning system (GPS) -- (see line 3). Re claim 10, substitute “WAN” with – wide area network (WAN) – and “GSM” with – global system for mobile communication (GSM) -- (see line 2). Re claim 11, substitute “the presence” with – a presence -- (see line 3). Re claim 12, substitute “a charging socket” with – the charging socket – (see line 1). Re claim 13, substitute “the presence” with – a presence -- (see line 3). Re claim 13, substitute “this target” with – the target -- (see step d). Re claim 13, substitute “frame” with -- period -- (see step e). Claims 4 and 7-9 are objected to since they are dependent upon an objected claim . Appropriate correction is required. 07-30-03-h AIA Claim Interpretation 07-30-03 AIA The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f): (f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. 07-30-05 The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked. As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: (A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function; (B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and (C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. The specification describes an evaluation unit and a transmission unit, in particular an antenna and its controls, for detecting the presence of a specific signal and for enabling transmission of vehicle information of the electric vehicle. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention. 07-34-01 Claims 5, 6, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. 07-34-05 AIA Claim 5 recites the limitation " the temperature, of the battery " in line 3 . There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 6 recites the limitation "the location", “the GPS location”, and “the chassis number” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. 07-34-05 AIA Claim 13 recites the limitation " the evaluation electronics " in step c . There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (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. 07-15-aia AIA Claim(s) 1-4, 6, and 8-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Harper et al. (US 9,758,046) (hereinafter “Harper”) . Re claims 1 and 11-13, Harper discloses a method for transmitting vehicle information during a charging situation of an electric vehicle (120) at a charging station (110), via a charging socket (130, 230, 330, 430) including a dongle (140, 240, 340) comprising evaluation electronics (242, 342), a transmission device (256, 356), and an energy supply (248) (col. 4, line 49 to col. 5, line 60; col. 8, line 29 to col. 9, line 57), wherein the method comprises the steps of: a. connecting the charging socket (130, 230, 330, 430) of a charging cable to a vehicle-side charging plug of the electric vehicle (120) (col. 4, line 61 to col. 5, line 3); b. connecting a cable-side charging plug to a mains-side charging socket of a charging station (110) (col. 4, lines 49-60); c. carrying out signal analysis by the evaluation electronics (242, 342) (col. 5, lines 14-35; col. 9, lines 58-67); d. generating a specific signal when the signal analysis indicates that an examined parameter is at a target value within a specific time period (col. 11, lines 5-20; col. 14, lines 39-56; col. 15, line 63 to col. 16, line 43); and e. transmitting vehicle information when the specific signal is present at the dongle within the specific time period (col. 11, lines 21-34; col. 16, lines 13-31). Re claim 2, Harper discloses a method for transmitting vehicle information via a charging socket (130, 230, 330, 430) including a dongle (140, 240, 340) comprising evaluation electronics (242, 342), a transmission device (256, 356), and an energy supply (248) (col. 4, line 49 to col. 5, line 60; col. 8, line 29 to col. 9, line 57), wherein the method comprises the steps of: a. connecting the charging socket (130, 230, 330, 430) to a vehicle-side charging plug of the electric vehicle (120) (col. 4, line 61 to col. 5, line 3); b. simulation of a signal level of a connected charging station (110) by the dongle (col. 4, lines 49-60; col. 15, line 63 to col. 16, line 43); c. carrying out signal analysis by the evaluation electronics (242, 342) (col. 5, lines 14-35; col. 9, lines 58-67); d. generating a specific signal when the signal analysis indicates that an examined parameter is at a target value within a specific time period (col. 11, lines 5-20; col. 14, lines 39-56; col. 15, line 63 to col. 16, line 43); and e. transmitting vehicle information when the specific signal is present at the dongle within the specific time period (col. 11, lines 21-34; col. 16, lines 13-31). Re claim 3, Harper discloses a method for transmitting vehicle information via a charging socket (130, 230, 330, 430) including a dongle (140, 240, 340) comprising evaluation electronics (242, 342), a transmission device (256, 356), and an energy supply (248) (col. 4, line 49 to col. 5, line 60; col. 8, line 29 to col. 9, line 57), wherein the method comprises the steps of: a. connecting the charging socket (130, 230, 330, 430) to a vehicle-side charging plug of the electric vehicle (120) (col. 4, line 61 to col. 5, line 3); b. removing the charging socket from the vehicle-side charging plug of the electric vehicle (col. 4, line 61 to col. 5, line 3); c. carrying out signal analysis by the evaluation electronics (242, 342) (col. 5, lines 14-35; col. 9, lines 58-67); d. generating a specific signal when the signal analysis indicates that an examined parameter is at a target value within a specific time period (col. 11, lines 5-20; col. 14, lines 39-56; col. 15, line 63 to col. 16, line 43); and e. transmitting vehicle information when the specific signal is present at the dongle within the specific time period (col. 11, lines 21-34; col. 16, lines 13-31). Re claim 4, Harper further discloses wherein the vehicle information comprises status information of a battery of the electric vehicle (see col. 3, lines 64-66). Re claim 6, Harper further discloses wherein the vehicle information comprises a GPS location (see col. 7, lines 48-50). Re claim 8, Harper further discloses wherein the vehicle information is transmitted periodically, within a querying interval, and/or in response to a querying ping (col. 11, lines 21-34; col. 16, lines 13-31). Re claims 9 and 10, Harper further discloses wherein the vehicle information is transmitted over a radio network, wherein the radio network is a WAN or GSM network (col. 6, line 56 to col. 7, line 1) . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harper. The teachings of Harper have been discussed above . Harper fails to teach wherein the specific signal is a 6 V signal. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to set the specific signal to 6 V, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) . Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Hassan-Ali et al. (US 9,437,381) Gadh et al. (US 2014/0203077) Kim et al. (US 2018/0001776) Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to APRIL A TAYLOR whose telephone number is (571)272-2403. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday between 9am-6pm. 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, STEVEN S PAIK can be reached at 571-272-2404. 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. /APRIL A TAYLOR/Examiner, Art Unit 2876 /EDWYN LABAZE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2876 Application/Control Number: 18/262,358 Page 2 Art Unit: 2876 Application/Control Number: 18/262,358 Page 3 Art Unit: 2876 Application/Control Number: 18/262,358 Page 4 Art Unit: 2876 Application/Control Number: 18/262,358 Page 5 Art Unit: 2876 Application/Control Number: 18/262,358 Page 6 Art Unit: 2876 Application/Control Number: 18/262,358 Page 7 Art Unit: 2876 Application/Control Number: 18/262,358 Page 8 Art Unit: 2876 Application/Control Number: 18/262,358 Page 9 Art Unit: 2876 Application/Control Number: 18/262,358 Page 10 Art Unit: 2876 Application/Control Number: 18/262,358 Page 11 Art Unit: 2876 Application/Control Number: 18/262,358 Page 12 Art Unit: 2876
Prosecution Insights