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 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 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.
(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.
Claims 1-3, 6-13 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Feldman et al. US PGPUB 2022/0228877.
Regarding claim 1, Feldman discloses a method for improving efficiency of charging an Electric Vehicle (EV) that follows a prescribed route, the method comprising:
transmitting, by a charger, charger data to a server, wherein the charger is among a plurality of chargers along the prescribed route [fig. 1; pars. 16-17, 26-28 & 60-61; server (i.e. database 128 or electric mobility service provider (eMSP) 102 receive data regarding various chargers 108-114, including chargers on the route (fig. 2)];
receiving, by the charger, a charging plan from the server, wherein the charging plan is calculated based on a total cost per distance (TCD) of travel over each of a plurality of route segments between the plurality of chargers along the prescribed route, telemetry data received from the EV, and the charger data [fig. 6; pars. 59-64 & 68-70; the server can determine the best route based on the route segment costs, the SOC of the vehicle (telemetry data) and charger data (i.e. which charging network the charging station belongs to “CPO”); the route segment costs are determined based on a total cost per distance, based on the cost of charging at a particular charging station and the time/distance to reach it, is determined based on weightings for a plurality of different segments]; and
detecting, by the charger, that the EV is located at the charger; and automatically charging, by the charger, the EV according to the charging plan in response to the detecting [par. 43; the charger exchanges credentials with the vehicle upon vehicle arrival, thus detects that it is located at the charger; pars. 45, 47 and 50-52; the charger controls charging according to plan received from the server, once credentials are exchanged (par. 43)].
Regarding claim 2, Feldman discloses wherein the TCD of travel over each of the plurality of route segments is calculated based on at least one of environmental conditions, charger characteristics, EV characteristics, charging sessions, energy cost data, terrain data, or traffic data along the prescribed route [par. 59; at least cost].
Regarding claim 3, Feldman discloses wherein the terrain data includes at least one of inclination, declination, curves, speeds, stops, or traffic signals along the prescribed route [pars. 59-64; the cost data is determined as a weighted value, including actual pricing and other characteristics including user preference for highways/city streets (thus information regarding speeds, stops and traffic signals; highways having higher speeds and less stops/traffic lights)].
Regarding claim 6, Feldman discloses wherein the charging plan is determined to minimize a total TCD over all segments of the prescribed route [par. 28].
Regarding claim 7, Feldman discloses wherein: the TCD of travel over each of the plurality of route segments is calculated based on battery pack characteristics, and the battery pack characteristics include make, model, manufacturer, capacity, battery aging, past battery usage, or past inter-journey battery storage state of charge of the EV [par. 70; vehicle characteristics like battery size/capacity are stored, and used to calculate the SOC, which is in turn used to determine the TCD since the SOC and the associated range is used for the TCD calculations (pars. 59-64 & 68-70)].
Regarding claim 8, Feldman discloses wherein the charging plan is determined to maintain the EV within upper and lower state of charge thresholds as the EV traverses the prescribed route [par. 78; the route can be modified to maintain the SOC above a certain threshold, the SOC will be below the maximum threshold while driving since it discharges the battery to drive the vehicle].
Regarding claim 9, Feldman discloses wherein the charging plan is determined based on a minimum state of charge (SoC) established for the EV, wherein the minimum state of charge is established based on at least one of:
a minimum SoC to limit battery damage, a lifespan reduction, a minimum SoC required to reach a next two charging stations in a route, a minimum SoC need to complete the route without charging, a minimum SoC calculated to abort the route and to reach a depot, the SoC equals charge when the route was started, or a manually set SoC threshold [par. 78; a minimum SOC to limit battery damage].
Regarding claim 10, Feldman discloses wherein the telemetry data includes at least one of an internal temperature of the EV, external temperature, internal lighting state, external lighting state, a temperature of a battery pack, or a number of passengers in the EV [par. 70, 72 & 76; the computing device estimates the SOC via information from the vehicle regarding external temperature of the vehicle].
Regarding claim 11, Feldman discloses a system for improving efficiency of charging an Electric Vehicle (EV) that follows a prescribed route, the system comprising:
a memory; a communication interface [fig. 4 charger management 420; par. 90’ 420 communicates over a network to 128, 102 and 106 and has a usage DB 422; thus a memory and communication interface]; and
a charger, wherein the charger is among a plurality of chargers along the prescribed route [fig. 1; pars. 16-17, 26-28 & 60-61; electric mobility service provider (the computing device/eMSP) 102 receive data regarding various chargers 108-114, including chargers on the route (fig. 2)]; and
a processor communicatively coupled to the memory and, the communication interface and the charger [par. 90; 420 has multiple components which process various types of information, and it is coupled to one or more chargers (i.e. 214 of fig. 4)]
wherein the processor is configured to:
transmit, using the communication interface, charger data, for the charger to a server [fig. 4; par. 30, 83, 88 & 90; 420 has an authorization system and a power monitoring system, it translate usage data (charger data) to severs 102/106/128],
receive, using the communication interface, a charging plan from the server, wherein the charging plan is calculated a total cost per distance (TCD) of travel over each of a plurality of route segments between the plurality of chargers along the prescribed route, telemetry data received from the EV, and the charger data [fig. 6; pars. 59-64 & 68-70; the server can determine the best route based on the route segment costs, the SOC of the vehicle (telemetry data) and charger data (i.e. which charging network the charging station belongs to “CPO”); the route segment costs are determined based on a total cost per distance, based on the cost of charging at a particular charging station and the time/distance to reach it, is determined based on weightings for a plurality of different segments; the charging plan is transmitted to the chargers which are a part of 420 (fig. 4)];
detect that the EV is located at the charger, and automatically charge the EV according to the charging plan in response to the EV being detected [par. 43; the charger exchanges credentials with the vehicle upon vehicle arrival, thus detects that it is located at the charger; pars. 45, 47 and 50-52; the charger controls charging according to plan received from the server, once credentials are exchanged (par. 43)].
Regarding claim 12, Feldman discloses wherein the TCD of travel over each of the plurality of route segments is calculated based on at least one of environmental conditions, charger characteristics, EV characteristics, charging sessions, energy cost data, terrain data, or traffic data along the prescribed route [par. 59; at least cost].
Regarding claim 13, Feldman discloses wherein the terrain data includes at least one of inclination, declination, curves, speeds, stops, or traffic signals along the prescribed route [pars. 59-64; the cost data is determined as a weighted value, including actual pricing and other characteristics including user preference for highways/city streets (thus information regarding speeds, stops and traffic signals; highways having higher speeds and less stops/traffic lights)].
Regarding claim 16, Feldman discloses wherein the charging plan is determined to minimize a total TCD over all segments of the prescribed route [par. 28].
Regarding claim 17, Feldman discloses wherein: the TCD of travel over each of the plurality of route segments is calculated based on battery pack characteristics, and
the battery pack characteristics include make, model, manufacturer, capacity, battery aging, past battery usage, or past inter-journey battery storage state of charge of the EV [par. 70; vehicle characteristics like battery size/capacity are stored, and used to calculate the SOC, which is in turn used to determine the TCD since the SOC and the associated range is used for the TCD calculations (pars. 59-64 & 68-70)].
Regarding claim 18, Feldman discloses wherein the charging plan is determined to maintain the EV within upper and lower state of charge thresholds as the EV traverses the prescribed route [par. 78; the route can be modified to maintain the SOC above a certain threshold, the SOC will be below the maximum threshold while driving since it discharges the battery to drive the vehicle].
Regarding claim 19, Feldman discloses wherein the charging plan is determined based on a minimum state of charge (SoC) established for the EV, wherein the minimum state of charge is established based on at least one of a minimum SoC to limit battery damage, a lifespan reduction, a minimum SoC required to reach a next two charging stations in a route, a minimum SoC need to complete the route without charging, a minimum SoC calculated to abort the route and to reach a depot, the SoC equals charge when the route was started, or a manually set SoC threshold [par. 78; a minimum SOC to limit battery damage].
Regarding claim 20, Feldman discloses wherein the telemetry data includes at least one of an internal temperature of the EV, external temperature, internal lighting state, external lighting state, a temperature of a battery pack, or a number of passengers in the EV [par. 70, 72 & 76; the computing device estimates the SOC via information from the vehicle regarding external temperature of the vehicle].
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.
Claims 4 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feldman et al. US PGPUB 2022/0228877.
Regarding claims 4 and 14, Feldman does not explicitly disclose further comprising: receiving, by the charger, battery information from the EV, and wherein the charging is further based on the battery information received from the EV.
However, Examiner takes Official Notice that it is well known in the battery charging arts for the charger to receive battery information from the EV, and wherein the charging is further based on the battery information received from the EV, so that the charger can avoid overcharging or undercharging the battery. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Feldman to further include receiving, by the charger, battery information from the EV, and wherein the charging is further based on the battery information received from the EV for the purpose of receiving, by the charger, battery information from the EV, and wherein the charging is further based on the battery information received from the EV to ensure the desired amount of charge is in the battery, and since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to apply a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results is obvious. KSR International Co. v Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 127 S. Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Claims 5 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feldman et al. US PGPUB 2022/0228877 in view of Gerrese et al. US PGPUB 2022/0120569.
Regarding claims 5 and 15, Feldman does not explicitly disclose wherein:
the TCD of travel over each of the plurality of route segments is calculated based on characteristics of the EV, and the characteristics of the EV include at least one of a make, model, manufacturer, age, mileage, state of repair, tire condition, tire selection or aerodynamics of the EV.
However, Gerrese discloses a charging routing system for vehicles [abs.; par. 44] wherein the TCD of travel over each of the plurality of route segments is calculated based on characteristics of the EV, and the characteristics of the EV include at least one of a make, model, manufacturer, age, mileage, state of repair, tire condition, tire selection or aerodynamics of the EV [par. 44; route selection (weighted cost) includes a plurality of parameters, including maintenance cost (state of repair)].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Feldman to further include the TCD of travel over each of the plurality of route segments is calculated based on characteristics of the EV, and the characteristics of the EV include at least one of a make, model, manufacturer, age, mileage, state of repair, tire condition, tire selection or aerodynamics of the EV for the purpose of considering a plurality of goals when routing the vehicle, as taught by Gerrese (par. 24).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID V HENZE whose telephone number is (571)272-3317. The examiner can normally be reached M to F, 9am to 7pm.
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, Taelor Kim can be reached at 571-270-7166. 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.
/DAVID V HENZE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2859