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. Drawings The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the limitations of claim s 3 and 4 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. Specification The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details. The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes, ” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided. The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it contains phrases which can be implied, i.e., “In an embodiment” . A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b). 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. Claim s 1- 4, 6-11, 13-16, and 18- 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (abstract idea) without reciting additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Moreover, the claims do not appear to recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Regarding claim 1 : Step 2A Prong I: “ a scheduler component that schedules an electric charging time slot for a charging patch of a road for an electric vehicle based on an energy requirement of the electric vehicle and a destination arrival time requirement of the electric vehicle ” (Abstract Idea: mental process). Step 2A Prong II: The additional elements: “ A system comprising: a memory that stores computer executable components; and a processor that executes the computer executable components stored in the memory ” – This limitation describes “ memory ” and “ processor ” at a high level of generality, amounting to “apply it” step (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Thus, a s a whole, the additional elements do not integrate the recited abstract matter into practical application . Step 2B Inventive Step: The above additional elements amount to court recognized well-understood, routine, conventional activity because it merely amounts to storing and retrieving information and/or generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(d)). Therefore, the claim as a whole, together with the abstract matter and additional elements, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claims 2- 4 and 6-9 do not appear to make the claims eligible for reasons similar to those noted above and are therefore also rejected under 35 USC 101. It is noted that the limitation of claim 9 is considered insignificant extra solution activity and thus not a practical application. Regarding claim 1 0 : Step 2A Prong I: “ receiving … an energy requirement of an electric vehicle and a destination arrival time requirement of the electric vehicle ” (Abstract Idea: mental process). “ scheduling … an electric charging time slot for a charging patch of a road for the electric vehicle driving on the road based on the energy requirement of the electric vehicle and the destination arrival time requirement of the electric vehicle ” (Abstract Idea: mental process). Step 2A Prong II: The additional elements: “ A computer-implemented method, comprising: … a system operably coupled to a processor ” – This limitation describes a “ system ” and “ processor ” at a high level of generality, amounting to “apply it” step (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Thus, a s a whole, the additional elements do not integrate the recited abstract matter into practical application . Step 2B Inventive Step: The above additional elements amount to court recognized well-understood, routine, conventional activity because it merely amounts to storing and retrieving information and/or generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(d)). Therefore, the claim as a whole, together with the abstract matter and additional elements, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claims 11 and 13-15 do not appear to make the claims eligible for reasons similar to those noted above and are therefore also rejected under 35 USC 101. It is noted that the limitation of claim 1 5 is considered insignificant extra solution activity and thus not a practical application. Regarding claim 1 6 : Step 2A Prong I: “ receive an energy requirement of an electric vehicle and a destination arrival time requirement of the electric vehicle ” (Abstract Idea: mental process). “ schedule an electric charging time slot for a charging patch of a road for the electric vehicle driving on the road based on the energy requirement of the electric vehicle and the destination arrival time requirement of the electric vehicle ” (Abstract Idea: mental process). Step 2A Prong II: The additional elements: “ A computer program product facilitating electric charging scheduling for electric vehicles, the computer program product comprising a computer readable storage medium having program instructions embodied therewith, the program instructions executable by a processor ” – This limitation describes a “ computer readable storage medium ” and “ processor ” at a high level of generality, amounting to “apply it” step (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Thus, a s a whole, the additional elements do not integrate the recited abstract matter into practical application . Step 2B Inventive Step: The above additional elements amount to court recognized well-understood, routine, conventional activity because it merely amounts to storing and retrieving information and/or generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(d)). Therefore, the claim as a whole, together with the abstract matter and additional elements, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claims 1 8 - 20 do not appear to make the claims eligible for reasons similar to those noted above and are therefore also rejected under 35 USC 101. It is noted that the limitation of claim 20 is considered insignificant extra solution activity and thus not a practical application. Claims 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claim may be considered a transitory signal transmission (see MPEP 2106.03 I). 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. Claim(s) 1-2, 6, 10, 13, 16, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by RICCI (US Pub. No. 2017/0136908) . Regarding claim 1 , RICCI discloses a system comprising: a memory (¶ 0156: FIG. 17 illustrates details of a computer system that is implementing the teachings of this disclosure, such as operating the controller 144, controller 136, or control system 208 (or a component thereof). System bus 1700 interconnects the major hardware components. The system is controlled by microprocessor 1704, which serves as the central processing unit (CPU ) for the system. System memory 1712 is typically divided into multiple types of memory or memory areas such as read-only memory (ROM), random-access memory (RAM) and others ) that stores computer executable components ( ¶ 0088 : control system 208 with attached database 212 ; ¶ 0090 : Referring to FIG. 3, the control system 208 includes a grid load availability evaluator 300, a vehicle tracker 304, a vehicle bidirectional load balance mechanism 308, a switching fabric 312, a notification module 316, a vehicle analyzer 320, a vehicle router 324, and a communication interface 328, connected by a bus or wireless and/or wired network 332 ) ; and a processor that executes the computer executable components stored in the memory (¶ 0156: see above) , wherein the computer executable components comprise: a scheduler component ( ¶ 0024 : the controller can further determine whether the oncoming vehicle has reserved in advance a charge from the primary coil. When the oncoming vehicle has a reservation , the controller activates the primary coil as the oncoming vehicle passes over the primary coil to provide the reserved charge to the oncoming vehicle and, when the oncoming vehicle has no reservation, does not activate the primary coil as the oncoming vehicle passes over the primary coil ; ¶ 0108 : computer readable medium 1312 can further include vehicle operator or owner and/or vehicle identity information regarding charge providing or receiving reservations and/or appointments and/or notifications ) that schedules an electric charging time slot ( ¶ 0092 : REV users can reserve an amount of charge in advance of receiving the charge. The reservation can simply specify that the REV will need a charge, an amount of charge required, and/or a charging segment(s) to be used for charging along with a time-of-day for the charge to occur. Such users are normally given priority to REV users with no advanced reservation ; ¶ 0108 : see above ) for a charging patch of a road (128, Fig. 1; ¶ 0079: charging segment 128 can have many different configurations depending on the application and locations. The charging segment typically includes a primary coil embedded in a roadway ) for an electric vehicle (100, Fig. 1) based on an energy requirement of the electric vehicle ( ¶ 0092 : an amount of charge required ; ¶ 0097 : vehicle analyzer 320 communicates with REVs, such as through wireless communications via a transceiver 140 of a nearby charging segment, to obtain information regarding … current charging requirement of the rechargeable energy storage 104 ; ¶ 0131 : In step 600, the control system selects an REV for analysis. The selection can be done based on REVs currently in operation. These can be identified by the REV logging into the network as part of the sequence of activating the vehicle. It can also be done in response to the REV … attempting to reserve a charging segment for charging ; ¶ 0135 : the vehicle analyzer 320 determines, based on the current position and destination, a current and estimates a future power consumption rate of the selected REV. The vehicle analyzer 320, based on this on board energy storage information, can determine a remaining charge of the REV's on board energy storage when it reaches its destination ) and a destination arrival time requirement of the electric vehicle ( ¶ 0134 : the vehicle tracker 304 and/or vehicle analyzer 320 determine, based on the received information, a destination of the selected REV. This information can be obtained by accessing the on board navigation system of the REV and a selected destination or waypoint. It can also be based on historical tracking records for the vehicle. For example, the REV can commute between business and residence locations at approximately the same times each business day ; ¶ 0142 : When the selected charging segment is over capacity, the vehicle router 324, in step 716, routes the selected REV to another roadway segment having less used charging segments. The routing decision can include a number of factors, including … the destination or next waypoint of the REV and the distance of other charging segments from its path of travel (e.g., the delay caused by re-routing the REV) ) . Regarding claim 2 , RICCI discloses the scheduler component schedules the electric charging time slot based on a charging capacity of the charging patch (¶ 0099 , 0141-0143 ) . Regarding claim 6 , RICCI discloses the electric vehicle is a first electric vehicle and the computer executable components further comprise: a consensus component that adjusts the electric charging time slot of the first electric vehicle based on a second energy requirement of a second electric vehicle (¶ 0099, 0127- 0128 , 0141-0143 ) . Regarding claim 10 , RICCI discloses a computer-implemented method (¶ 0156: FIG. 17 illustrates details of a computer system that is implementing the teachings of this disclosure, such as operating the controller 144, controller 136, or control system 208 (or a component thereof). System bus 1700 interconnects the major hardware components. The system is controlled by microprocessor 1704, which serves as the central processing unit (CPU) for the system. System memory 1712 is typically divided into multiple types of memory or memory areas such as read-only memory (ROM), random-access memory (RAM) and others ) , comprising: receiving, by a system ( ¶ 0088 : control system 208 with attached database 212 ; ¶ 0090 : Referring to FIG. 3, the control system 208 includes a grid load availability evaluator 300, a vehicle tracker 304, a vehicle bidirectional load balance mechanism 308, a switching fabric 312, a notification module 316, a vehicle analyzer 320, a vehicle router 324, and a communication interface 328, connected by a bus or wireless and/or wired network 332 ) operably coupled to a processor (¶ 0156: see above) , an energy requirement of an electric vehicle ( ¶ 0092 : an amount of charge required ; ¶ 0097 : vehicle analyzer 320 communicates with REVs, such as through wireless communications via a transceiver 140 of a nearby charging segment, to obtain information regarding … current charging requirement of the rechargeable energy storage 104 ; ¶ 0131 : In step 600, the control system selects an REV for analysis. The selection can be done based on REVs currently in operation. These can be identified by the REV logging into the network as part of the sequence of activating the vehicle. It can also be done in response to the REV…attempting to reserve a charging segment for charging ; ¶ 0135 : the vehicle analyzer 320 determines, based on the current position and destination, a current and estimates a future power consumption rate of the selected REV. The vehicle analyzer 320, based on this on board energy storage information, can determine a remaining charge of the REV's on board energy storage when it reaches its destination ) and a destination arrival time requirement of the electric vehicle ( ¶ 0134 : the vehicle tracker 304 and/or vehicle analyzer 320 determine, based on the received information, a destination of the selected REV. This information can be obtained by accessing the on board navigation system of the REV and a selected destination or waypoint. It can also be based on historical tracking records for the vehicle. For example, the REV can commute between business and residence locations at approximately the same times each business day ; ¶ 0142 : When the selected charging segment is over capacity, the vehicle router 324, in step 716, routes the selected REV to another roadway segment having less used charging segments. The routing decision can include a number of factors, including … the destination or next waypoint of the REV and the distance of other charging segments from its path of travel (e.g., the delay caused by re-routing the REV) ) ; and scheduling, by the system, an electric charging time slot ( ¶ 0092 : REV users can reserve an amount of charge in advance of receiving the charge. The reservation can simply specify that the REV will need a charge, an amount of charge required, and/or a charging segment(s) to be used for charging along with a time-of-day for the charge to occur. Such users are normally given priority to REV users with no advanced reservation ; ¶ 0108 : computer readable medium 1312 can further include vehicle operator or owner and/or vehicle identity information regarding charge providing or receiving reservations and/or appointments and/or notifications ) for a charging patch of a road (128, Fig. 1; ¶ 0079: charging segment 128 can have many different configurations depending on the application and locations. The charging segment typically includes a primary coil embedded in a roadway ) for an electric vehicle (100, Fig. 1) for the electric vehicle driving on the road based on the energy requirement of the electric vehicle (¶ 0092, 0097, 0131, 0135: see above) and the destination arrival time requirement of the electric vehicle ( ¶ 0024 : the controller can further determine whether the oncoming vehicle has reserved in advance a charge from the primary coil. When the oncoming vehicle has a reservation , the controller activates the primary coil as the oncoming vehicle passes over the primary coil to provide the reserved charge to the oncoming vehicle and, when the oncoming vehicle has no reservation, does not activate the primary coil as the oncoming vehicle passes over the primary coil ; ¶ 0108 , 013 4 , 01 42 : see above) . Regarding claim 13 , RICCI discloses the electric vehicle is a first electric vehicle and further comprising: adjusting, by the system, the electric charging time slot of the first electric vehicle based on a second energy requirement of a second electric vehicle (¶ 0099, 0127-0128, 0141-0143) . Regarding claim 16 , RICCI discloses a computer program product (¶ 0156: FIG. 17 illustrates details of a computer system that is implementing the teachings of this disclosure, such as operating the controller 144, controller 136, or control system 208 (or a component thereof). System bus 1700 interconnects the major hardware components. The system is controlled by microprocessor 1704, which serves as the central processing unit (CPU) for the system. System memory 1712 is typically divided into multiple types of memory or memory areas such as read-only memory (ROM), random-access memory (RAM) and others ) facilitating electric charging scheduling for electric vehicles (¶ 0024: the controller can further determine whether the oncoming vehicle has reserved in advance a charge from the primary coil. When the oncoming vehicle has a reservation , the controller activates the primary coil as the oncoming vehicle passes over the primary coil to provide the reserved charge to the oncoming vehicle and, when the oncoming vehicle has no reservation, does not activate the primary coil as the oncoming vehicle passes over the primary coil ) , the computer program product comprising a computer readable storage medium having program instructions embodied therewith (¶ 0156: see above) , the program instructions executable by a processor (¶ 0156: see above) to cause the processor to: receive an energy requirement of an electric vehicle ( 100, Fig. 1; ¶ 0092 : an amount of charge required ; ¶ 0097 : vehicle analyzer 320 communicates with REVs, such as through wireless communications via a transceiver 140 of a nearby charging segment, to obtain information regarding … current charging requirement of the rechargeable energy storage 104 ; ¶ 0131 : In step 600, the control system selects an REV for analysis. The selection can be done based on REVs currently in operation. These can be identified by the REV logging into the network as part of the sequence of activating the vehicle. It can also be done in response to the REV…attempting to reserve a charging segment for charging ; ¶ 0135 : the vehicle analyzer 320 determines, based on the current position and destination, a current and estimates a future power consumption rate of the selected REV. The vehicle analyzer 320, based on this on board energy storage information, can determine a remaining charge of the REV's on board energy storage when it reaches its destination ) and a destination arrival time requirement of the electric vehicle ( ¶ 0134 : the vehicle tracker 304 and/or vehicle analyzer 320 determine, based on the received information, a destination of the selected REV. This information can be obtained by accessing the on board navigation system of the REV and a selected destination or waypoint. It can also be based on historical tracking records for the vehicle. For example, the REV can commute between business and residence locations at approximately the same times each business day ; ¶ 0142 : When the selected charging segment is over capacity, the vehicle router 324, in step 716, routes the selected REV to another roadway segment having less used charging segments. The routing decision can include a number of factors, including … the destination or next waypoint of the REV and the distance of other charging segments from its path of travel (e.g., the delay caused by re-routing the REV) ) ; and schedule an electric charging time slot ( ¶ 0092 : REV users can reserve an amount of charge in advance of receiving the charge. The reservation can simply specify that the REV will need a charge, an amount of charge required, and/or a charging segment(s) to be used for charging along with a time-of-day for the charge to occur. Such users are normally given priority to REV users with no advanced reservation ; ¶ 0108 : computer readable medium 1312 can further include vehicle operator or owner and/or vehicle identity information regarding charge providing or receiving reservations and/or appointments and/or notifications ) for a charging patch of a road (128, Fig. 1; ¶ 0079: charging segment 128 can have many different configurations depending on the application and locations. The charging segment typically includes a primary coil embedded in a roadway ) for the electric vehicle (100, Fig. 1) driving on the road ( ¶ 0036 : roadway charging segments can allow rechargeable electric vehicles to charge while in motion ; ¶ 0075 : charging segment can be located at locations where REVs stop, such as intersections having stop signs or stop lights, bus stops, parking places, roadside pull outs, and the like, and where REVs are in motion, such as in the middle of roadways traveled by REVs ) based on the energy requirement of the electric vehicle (¶ 0092, 0097, 0131, 0135: see above) and the destination arrival time requirement of the electric vehicle ( ¶ 0024 : the controller can further determine whether the oncoming vehicle has reserved in advance a charge from the primary coil. When the oncoming vehicle has a reservation , the controller activates the primary coil as the oncoming vehicle passes over the primary coil to provide the reserved charge to the oncoming vehicle and, when the oncoming vehicle has no reservation, does not activate the primary coil as the oncoming vehicle passes over the primary coil ; ¶ 0108, 0134, 0142 : see above) . Regarding claim 18 , RICCI discloses the electric vehicle is a first electric vehicle and wherein the program instructions are further executable by the processor to cause the processor to: adjust the electric charging time slot of the first electric vehicle based on a second energy requirement of a second electric vehicle (¶ 0099, 0127-0128, 0141-0143). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 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. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. Claim(s) 3 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over RICCI as applied to claim s 1-2, 6, 10, 13, 16, and 18 above, and further in view of TELPAZ (US Pub. No. 2023/0305568) . Regarding claim 3 , RICCI discloses t he system as applied to claim 1, but fails to disclose the scheduler component schedules the electric charging time slot based on a level of range anxiety of a passenger of the electric vehicle. TELPAZ discloses the scheduler component schedules the electric charging time slot based on a level of range anxiety of a passenger of the electric vehicle (abstract , ¶ 0004, 0026-0028 , 0031 ) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to incorporate scheduling the electric charging time slot based on a level of range anxiety as disclosed in TELPAZ into the system of RICCI to produce an expected result of a system including scheduling an electric charging time slot based on a level of range anxiety . The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to provide increased user convenience . Regarding claim 11 , RICCI discloses t he computer-implemented method as applied to claim 10, but fails to disclose the scheduling is based on a level of range anxiety of a passenger of the electric vehicle. TELPAZ discloses the scheduling is based on a level of range anxiety of a passenger of the electric vehicle (abstract, ¶ 0004, 0026-0028, 0031). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to incorporate scheduling based on a level of range anxiety as disclosed in TELPAZ into the method of RICCI to produce an expected result of a method including scheduling based on a level of range anxiety. The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to provide increased user convenience. Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over RICCI as applied to claim s 1-2, 6, 10, 13, 16, and 18 above, and further in view of PENILLA (US Pub. No. 2017/0169648) . Regarding claim 4 , RICCI discloses the system of claim 1, but fails to disclose the scheduler component schedules the electric charging time slot based on an availability of electric charging slots of parking charging locations within a threshold distance of a driving route of the electric vehicle. PENILLA discloses the scheduler component schedules the electric charging time slot based on an availability of electric charging slots of parking charging locations within a threshold distance of a driving route of the electric vehicle (¶ 0011, 0034, 0048, 0084, 0086, 0092-0093 ) . It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill to schedule the electric charging time slot for the charging patch of the road as disclosed in RICCI based on the availability of electric charging slots of parking charging locations of PENILLA. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to incorporate scheduling the electric charging time slot based on an availability of electric charging slots of parking charging locations as disclosed in PENILLA into the system of RICCI to produce an expected result of a system including scheduling an electric charging time slot based on an availability of electric charging slots of parking charging locations. The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to provide increased user convenience . Claim(s) 5, 12, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over RICCI as applied to claim s 1-2, 6, 10, 13, 16, and 18 above, and further in view of CHAKRABORTY (US 2020/0262305) . Regarding claim 5 , RICCI discloses t he system as applied to claim 1, but fails to disclose the computer executable components further comprise: a speed component that controls a speed of the electric vehicle to cause the electric vehicle to arrive at the charging patch according to the electric charging time slot. CHAKRABORTY discloses a speed component that controls a speed of the electric vehicle to cause the electric vehicle to arrive at the charging [unit] according to the electric charging time slot (¶ 0080, 0089, 0097) . It would be obvious to provide the speed component of CHAKRABORTY in the system of RICCI to cause the electric vehicle to arrive at the charging patch as recited . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to incorporate the speed component of CHAKRABORTY into the system of RICCI to produce an expected result of a system including a speed component . The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to provide increased user convenience . Regarding claim 12 , RICCI discloses t he computer-implemented method as applied to claim 10, but fails to disclose controlling, by the system, a speed of the electric vehicle to cause the electric vehicle to arrive at the charging patch according to the electric charging time slot. CHAKRABORTY discloses controlling, by the system, a speed of the electric vehicle to cause the electric vehicle to arrive at the charging [unit] according to the electric charging time slot (¶ 0080, 0089, 0097). It would be obvious to provide controlling the speed as disclosed in CHAKRABORTY in the method of RICCI to cause the electric vehicle to arrive at the charging patch as recited. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to incorporate controlling the speed of the electric vehicle as disclosed in CHAKRABORTY into the method of RICCI to produce an expected result of a method including controlling the speed of the electric vehicle. The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to provide increased user convenience. Regarding claim 17 , RICCI discloses t he computer program product as applied to claim 16, but fails to disclose the program instructions are further executable by the processor to cause the processor to: control a speed of the electric vehicle to cause the electric vehicle to arrive at the charging patch according to the electric charging time slot. CHAKRABORTY discloses the program instructions are further executable by the processor to cause the processor to: control a speed of the electric vehicle to cause the electric vehicle to arrive at the charging [unit] according to the electric charging time slot (¶ 0080, 0089, 0097). It would be obvious to provide controlling the speed as disclosed in CHAKRABORTY in the computer program product of RICCI to cause the electric vehicle to arrive at the charging patch as recited. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to incorporate controlling the speed of the electric vehicle as disclosed in CHAKRABORTY into the computer program product of RICCI to produce an expected result of a computer program product including controlling the speed of the electric vehicle. The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to provide increased user convenience. Claim(s) 7-9, 14-15, and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over RICCI as applied to claim s 1-2, 6, 10, 13, 16, and 18 above, and further in view of SUTO (US Pub. No. 2023/0182608) . Regarding claim 7 , RICCI discloses t he system as applied to claim 6, but fails to disclose the consensus component switches the electric charging time slot of the first electric vehicle with a second electric charging time slot of the second electric vehicle. SUTO discloses the consensus component switches the electric charging time slot of the first electric vehicle with a second electric charging time slot of the second electric vehicle (abstract, ¶ 0016, 0018, 0025, 0030- 0031, 0036, 0039, 0048, claim 3, claim 17) . It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill to apply the teaching of switching charging time slots as disclosed in SUTO for the system including charging time slots for charging patches as disclosed in RICCI. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to incorporate switching the time slots as disclosed in SUTO into the system of RICCI to produce an expected result of a system including switching of charging time slots. The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to provide increased user convenience. Regarding claim 8 , RICCI discloses t he system as applied to claim 6, and further discloses the charging patch is a first charging patch ( ¶ 0024, 0079 ). RICCI fails to disclose the consensus component further: determines whether the first electric vehicle possesses a minimum amount of energy required to reach the charging patch at the electric charging time slot; and in response to a determination that the first electric vehicle does not possess the minimum amount of energy required to reach the charging patch at the electric charging time slot, determines whether the second electric vehicle currently driving in a second charging patch possesses a second minimum amount of energy required to reach a future electric charging time slot of the second electric vehicle, wherein the second charging patch is located closer to the first electric vehicle than the first charging patch and the second charging patch does not have capacity to charge both the first electric vehicle and the second electric vehicle. SUTO discloses the consensus component further: determines whether the first electric vehicle possesses a minimum amount of energy required to reach the charging [unit] at the electric charging time slot; and in response to a determination that the first electric vehicle does not possess the minimum amount of energy required to reach the charging [unit] at the electric charging time slot, determines whether the second electric vehicle currently driving in a second charging [unit] possesses a second minimum amount of energy required to reach a future electric charging time slot of the second electric vehicle, wherein the second charging [unit] is located closer to the first electric vehicle than the first charging [unit] and the second charging [unit] does not have capacity to charge both the first electric vehicle and the second electric vehicle (abstract, ¶ 0016, 0018, 0025, 0030-003 3 , 0036, 0039, 0048, claim 3, claim 17). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill to apply the teaching of determining the minimum amounts of energy for reaching charging time slots as disclosed in SUTO for the system including charging time slots for charging patches as disclosed in RICCI. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to incorporate determining the minimum amounts of energy for reaching charging time slots as disclosed in SUTO into the system of RICCI to produce an expected result of a system including determining minimum amounts of energy for reaching charging time slots. The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to provide increased user convenience. Regarding claim 9 , RICCI as modified by SUTO teaches the consensus component further directs the second electric vehicle to vacate the second charging patch (SUTO, ¶ 0014, 0016, 0033, 0036 ) . Regarding claim 14 , RICCI discloses t he computer-implemented method as applied to claim 13, and further discloses the charging patch is a first charging patch (¶ 0024, 0079) . RICCI fails to disclose determining, by the system, whether the first electric vehicle possesses a minimum amount of energy required to reach the charging patch at the electric charging time slot; and responsive to determining that the first electric vehicle does not possess the minimum amount of energy required to reach the charging patch at the electric charging time slot, determining, by the system, whether the second electric vehicle currently driving in a second charging patch possesses a second minimum amount of energy required to reach a future electric charging time slot of the second electric vehicle, wherein the second charging patch is located closer to the first electric vehicle than the first charging patch and the second charging patch does not have capacity to charge both the first electric vehicle and the second electric vehicle. SUTO discloses determining, by the system, whether the first electric vehicle possesses a minimum amount of energy required to reach the charging [unit] at the electric charging time slot; and responsive to determining that the first electric vehicle does not possess the minimum amount of energy required to reach the charging [unit] at the electric charging time slot, determining, by the system, whether the second electric vehicle currently driving in a second charging [unit] possesses a second minimum amount of energy required to reach a future electric charging time slot of the second electric vehicle, wherein the second charging [unit] is located closer to the first electric vehicle than the first charging [unit] and the second charging [unit] does not have capacity to charge both the first electric vehicle and the second electric vehicle (abstract, ¶ 0016, 0018, 0025, 0030-0033, 0036, 0039, 0048, claim 3, claim 17). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill to apply the teaching of determining the minimum amounts of energy for reaching charging time slots as disclosed in SUTO for the method including charging time slots for charging patches as disclosed in RICCI. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to incorporate determining the minimum amounts of energy for reaching charging time slots as disclosed in SUTO into the method of RICCI to produce an expected result of a method including determining minimum amounts of energy for reaching charging time slots. The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to provide increased user convenience. Regarding claim 15 , RICCI as modified by SUTO teaches directing, by the system, the second electric vehicle to vacate the second charging patch (SUTO, ¶ 0014, 0016, 0033, 0036) . Regarding claim 19 , RICCI discloses t he computer program product as applied to claim 18, and further discloses the charging patch is a first charging patch (¶ 0024, 0079) . RICCI fails to disclose the program instructions are further executable by the processor to cause the processor to: determine whether the first electric vehicle possesses a minimum amount of energy required to reach the charging patch at the electric charging time slot; and in response to a determination that the first electric vehicle does not possess the minimum amount of energy required to reach the charging patch at the electric charging time slot, determine whether the second electric vehicle currently driving in a second charging patch possesses a second minimum amount of energy required to reach a future electric charging time slot of the second electric vehicle, wherein the second charging patch is located closer to the first electric vehicle than the first charging patch and the second charging patch does not have capacity to charge both the first electric vehicle and the second electric vehicle. SUTO discloses the program instructions are further executable by the processor to cause the processor to: determine whether the first electric vehicle possesses a minimum amount of energy required to reach the charging [unit] at the electric charging time slot; and in response to a determination that the first electric vehicle does not possess the minimum amount of energy required to reach the charging [unit] at the electric charging time slot, determine whether the second electric vehicle currently driving in a second charging [unit] possesses a second minimum amount of energy required to reach a future electric charging time slot of the second electric vehicle, wherein the second charging [unit] is located closer to the first electric vehicle than the first charging [unit] and the second charging [unit] does not have capacity to charge both the first electric vehicle and the second electric vehicle (abstract, ¶ 0016, 0018, 0025, 0030-0033, 0036, 0039, 0048, claim 3, claim 17). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill to apply the teaching of determining the minimum amounts of energy for reaching charging time slots as disclosed in SUTO for the compute r program product including charging time slots for charging patches as disclosed in RICCI. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to incorporate determining the minimum amounts of energy for reaching charging time slots as disclosed in SUTO into the computer program product of RICCI to produce an expected result of a computer program product including determining minimum amounts of energy for reaching charging time slots. The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to provide increased user convenience. Regarding claim 20 , RICCI as modified by SUTO teaches the program instructions are further executable by the processor to cause the processor to: direct the second electric vehicle to vacate the second charging patch (SUTO, ¶ 0014, 0016, 0033, 0036). Conclusion The prior art made of record on form PTO-892 and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT MANUEL HERNANDEZ whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-7916 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday-Friday 9a-5p ET . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Drew Dunn can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571) 272-2312 . 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. /Manuel Hernandez/ Examiner, Art Unit 2859 DATE \@ "M/d/yyyy" 4/2/2026 /TAELOR KIM/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2859