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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the communication(s) filed on 01 April 2026.
Claim(s) 14 and 16 is/are cancelled.
Claim(s) 1, 11 and 15 is/are amended.
Claim(s) 1-13, 15 and 17-20 is/are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01 April 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Rejections Under Section 101
Applicant argues that the claims improve the charging of electric vehicles. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Step 2A Prong 1 requires examiners to evaluate whether a claim recites a judicial exception as the applicant cited. The elements which examiner identified in Step 2A Prong 1 are those which describe the noted abstract idea which means that the claim recites an abstract idea. “The mere inclusion of a judicial exception such as a mathematical formula (which is one of the mathematical concepts identified as an abstract idea in MPEP § 2106.04(a)) in a claim means that the claim "recites" a judicial exception under Step 2A Prong One.” See MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2). “When performing the analysis at Step 2A Prong One, it is sufficient for the examiner to provide a reasoned rationale that identifies the judicial exception recited in the claim and explains why it is considered a judicial exception (e.g., that the claim limitation(s) falls within one of the abstract idea groupings). Therefore, there is no requirement for the examiner to rely on evidence, such as publications or an affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.104(d)(2), to find that a claim recites a judicial exception. Cf. Affinity Labs of Tex., LLC v. Amazon.com Inc., 838 F.3d 1266, 1271-72, 120 USPQ2d 1210, 1214-15 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (affirming district court decision that identified an abstract idea in the claims without relying on evidence); OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1362-64, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1092-94 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (same); Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 776 F.3d 1343, 1347, 113 USPQ2d 1354, 1357-58 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (same).” See MPEP 2106.07(a)(III). The omitted element(s) (if any) are elements in addition to the abstract idea (i.e. they are not abstract) which require further analysis under Step 2A Prong 2 in order to determine if they cause the recited abstract idea to be integrated into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.07(a)(II). The omitted element(s) (if any) are later enumerated under Step 2A Prong 2 as additional elements. The claims recite Marketing or Sales Activities or Behaviors. A Marketing or Sales Activity is described when registering a user account and processing payment for charging and electric vehicle, with the initiating charging step reciting rendering of goods/services when performing said Marketing or Sales Activities or Behaviors. The claims recite and/or describe a judicial exception.
Rejections Under Section 103
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks at pages 7-9, filed 01 April 2026, with respect to Claims 1-10, 15 and 17-20 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of 06 March 2025 has been withdrawn.
With respect to Claims 11-13, Applicant argues that Juhasz is not concerned with registering vehicles to a charging network. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner notes a charging network is extraordinarily broad and being members of said network are also extraordinarily broad. Juhasz discloses providing access to the queue (i.e. identifying the charging network) and registering the user during the request process based on the interactive system. See at least paragraphs [0030], [0057]-[0060] and Fig. 6. “For example, a customer or member of EVCS management network 1 210 may be at a location remote from any EVCS in network 1, and may need to access an EVCS within another EVCS management network.” This network is a charging network in that the users have access to charging stations in a network and Juhasz discloses registering the users as members. See further at least paragraph [0080] “The premium payment status 818 of the user, such as premium payment status 838, indicates whether or not a user associated with the User ID 832 has paid a premium for higher priority in the queue. If the user has paid a premium, for example, becoming a "monthly member" of a group that operates a number of EVCS or by paying a premium or indicating a willingness to pay a premium, at the time the user requests entry into the queue” which explicitly discloses user members of said charging network and has been additionally cited for clarity. Ergo Juhasz discloses the amended limitation when given their Broadest Reasonable Interpretation.
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.
Step 1 of the 101 Analysis:
Claims 1-13, 15 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recites a two methods and a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium for facilitating access to an electric vehicle charging network. These are processes and an article of manufacture which are within the four categories of statutory subject matter.
Step 2A Prong 1 of the 101 Analysis:
The following limitations and/or similar versions are recited in claim(s) 1, 11 and 15:
Claim 1:
“accessing a request associated with an electric vehicle to charge the electric vehicle at a specific charging station;”
“identifying,…, a charging network associated with and providing the specific charging station, wherein the charging network is identified from multiple, disparate charging networks having drivers of electric vehicles as members;”
“determining the electric vehicle is not registered with the charging network associated with the specific charging station;”
“identifying a registration protocol associated with and specific to the charging network…;”
“capturing information for the electric vehicle that is identified by the registration protocol specific to the charging network;”
“registering the electric vehicle with the charging network by providing the captured information to the charging network;”
“initiating charging of the electric vehicle by the specific charging station.”
Claim 11:
“initiating charging of the electric vehicle by the specific charging station by automatically providing information to the specific charging station to authorize the electric vehicle to receive charge from the specific charging station upon determining the electric vehicle is proximate to the specific charging station, wherein automatically providing information to the specific charging station includes:”
“identifying a charging network associated with and providing the specific charging station, wherein the charging network has drivers of electric vehicles as members;”
“registering the electric vehicle with the charging network via a registration protocol specific to the charging network; and providing payment information to the charging network via a payment protocol associated with the charging network.”
Claim 15:
“determining an electric vehicle has requested access to a charging station;”
“identifying multiple, available charging stations for the electric vehicle;”
“determining at least one charging station of the multiple, available charging stations are unknown to the electric vehicle;”
“capturing information for the electric vehicle that is identified by a registration protocol specific to a charging network associated with the at least one charging station, wherein the charging network is identified from multiple, disparate charging networks having drivers of electric vehicles as members;”
“providing the captured information to the charging network to register the electric vehicle with the charging network;
“pre-authorizing charging of the electric vehicle by the at least one charging station;”
These limitations, as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, describes Commercial or Legal Interactions but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “an interface system” or “non-transitory computer-readable storage medium”, nothing in the claims’ elements precludes the steps from practically describing Commercial or Legal Interactions. For example, but for the recited computer language, the limitations in the context of this claim describes Marketing or Sales Activities or Behaviors. A Marketing or Sales Activity is described when registering a user account and processing payment for charging and electric vehicle. If a claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, describes Commercial or Legal Interactions but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Activity” grouping of abstract ideas.
Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2 of the 101 Analysis:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the independent claim(s) recite the following additional elements:
Claim 1:
“…via the interface system…”
“…by calling an application programming interface (API) for the charging network to retrieve information for the registration protocol;”
Claim 11:
“A non-transitory, computer-readable storage medium whose contents, when executed by a computing system, cause the computing system to perform a method, the method comprising:”
“automatically determining an electric vehicle is proximate to a specific charging station;”
Claim 15:
“presenting a map via a user interface associated with the electric vehicle that displays: location information for the multiple, available charging stations, and a symbol that indicates the at least one charging station has been pre-authorized to charge the electric vehicle.”
The computer components (interface system, API, non-transitory computer-readable medium) are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a generic interface system, generic API, and generic storage) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to implement the judicial exception on a computer or by using a computer merely as a tool to perform an existing process. These element(s) in combination do not add anything that is not already present when the steps are considered separately. Simply implementing an abstract idea on a computer as a tool to perform an existing process is not indicative of integration into a practical application (See MPEP § 2106.05(f).)
The presenting step(s) are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., generally presenting data on a map) such that they amounts to no more than mere data gathering which is adding insignificant extra-solution activity. These element(s) in combination do not add anything that is not already present when the steps are considered separately. Simply adding insignificant extra-solution activity is not indicative of integration into a practical application (See MPEP § 2106.05(g).)
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B of the 101 Analysis:
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements identified in Step 2A Prong 2 (if any) amount to no more than mere instructions to implement the judicial exception on a computer or no more than mere data gathering or data outputting which only adds insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception. Accordingly, the Examiner:
• Carries over their identification of the additional element(s) in the claim from Step 2A Prong Two;
• Carries over their conclusions from Step 2A Prong Two on the considerations discussed in MPEP §§ 2106.05(a) - (c), (e) (f) and (h):
• Re-evaluates any additional element or combination of elements that was considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity per MPEP § 2106.05(g), because if such re-evaluation finds that the element is unconventional or otherwise more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, this finding may indicate that the additional element is no longer considered to be insignificant.
These element(s) in combination do not add anything that is not already present when the steps are considered separately. Adding insignificant extra-solution activity cannot provide an inventive concept when the activities are well-understood routine and conventional. The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner:
(for presenting various data) Receiving or transmitting data over a network, (See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II)).
The independent claims are not patent eligible.
Claims 2-10, 12-14 and 16-20 further define the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claims (charging network and mobile applications for example). The dependent claims are abstract for the reasons presented above because there are no additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or they are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, the dependent claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claims are not patent eligible.
Claim(s) 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Juhasz et al. (US 2014/0125279 A1 hereinafter Juhasz).
Claim 11
A non-transitory, computer-readable storage medium whose contents, when executed by a computing system, cause the computing system to perform a method, the method comprising: (Juhasz discloses embodiment using non-transitory computer-readable storage media. See at least paragraph [0034].)
automatically determining an electric vehicle is proximate to a specific charging station; and (Juhasz discloses determining an electric vehicle is proximate to a charging station. See at least paragraph [0073].)
initiating charging of the electric vehicle by the specific charging station by automatically providing information to the specific charging station to authorize the electric vehicle to receive charge from the specific charging station upon determining the electric vehicle is proximate to the specific charging station, wherein automatically providing information to the specific charging station includes: (Juhasz discloses determining an electric vehicle is proximate to a charging station and initiating charging thereafter. See at least paragraph Fig 7, item 770 and paragraph [0073].)
identifying a charging network associated with and providing the specific charging station, wherein the charging network has drivers of electric vehicles as members; (Juhasz discloses providing access to the queue (i.e. identifying the charging network) and registering the user during the request process based on the interactive system (i.e. a drivers of electric vehicle as a members). See at least paragraphs [0030], [0057]-[0060], [0080] and Fig. 6. Examiner notes registering a user has additional functionality but is functionally equivalent to registering a vehicle if a user has one vehicle. Omission of an Element and Its Function Is Obvious if the Function of the Element Is Not Desired. See MPEP §2144.04.)
registering the electric vehicle with the charging network via a registration protocol specific to the charging network; and (Juhasz discloses providing access to the queue (i.e. identifying the charging network) and registering the user during the request process based on the interactive system. See at least paragraphs [0030], [0057]-[0060] and Fig. 6.)
providing payment information to the charging network via a payment protocol associated with the charging network. (Juhasz discloses providing billing information for automatic billing. See at least paragraphs [0026], [0029]-[0030] and [0053].)
Claim 12
The computer-readable storage medium of claim 11, wherein automatically determining an electric vehicle is proximate to a specific charging station includes determining the specific charging station is within a predetermined distance to the electric vehicle. (Juhasz discloses usage of Bluetooth®, near field communications, or GPS to determine proximity within a few tens of feet. See at least paragraph [0073].)
Claim 13
The computer-readable storage medium of claim 11, wherein automatically determining an electric vehicle is proximate to a specific charging station includes determining the specific charging station is paired with the electric vehicle. (Juhasz discloses usage of Bluetooth® (i.e. pairing) to determine a user is proximate to a charging station. See at least paragraph [0073].)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Pudar et al. (US 2009/0210357 A1) discloses systems for controlling the charging of onboard energy storage systems of a plurality of plug-in vehicles using a remote command center.
Penilla et al. (US 9,545,853 B1) discloses registering a user and their vehicle in a charging network.
Conti et al. (“B4V2G: Bluetooth for electric vehicle to smart grid connection”) discloses electric vehicle recharge infrastructure including payment utilizing Bluetooth®.
Outwater et al. (WO 2011/049887 A1) discloses multi-space meters to separately manage and control electric vehicle charging located in conjunction with parking spaces.
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 ADAM J HILMANTEL whose telephone number is (571)272-8984. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30AM-5:00PM.
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, Abhishek Vyas can be reached at (571) 270-1836. 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.
/A.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3691
/ABHISHEK VYAS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3691
Prosecution Insights