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 the Claims
In the communication filed on 09/28/2023 claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 1, 9, and 15 are independent.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because Figs. 3-4 are missing titles and the line plots are incomplete at approximately 1050s for Fig. 3 and around 345s and 380s for Fig. 4. Additionally, in Figs. 5-6 the “100.00%” in the columns are not legible. Correct these minor informalities to have the drawing objections withdrawn. No new matter should be added.
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.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Independent claim 1 is directed towards a charging pile type recognition method, independent claim 9 is directed towards a computer device, and independent claim 15 is directed towards an electric vehicle service platform as identified in Step 1 of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test outlined in MPEP 2106.
The claims recite data gathering, calculations, and making determinations based on the calculations which are considered exceptions because the limitations fall under the methods of organizing human activity, mental processes, and mathematical concepts groupings of the abstract ideas, as identified in Step 2A Prong One.
The limitations from claim 1 that are considered exceptions are the following:
“obtaining a charging parameter of an electric vehicle within a preset time period”;
“determining a proportion of a preset power charging capacity of a charging pile within the preset time period according to the charging parameter, wherein the proportion of the preset power charging capacity is equal to a ratio of a first amount of electricity charged into the electric vehicle by the charging pile at a preset power within the preset time period to a total amount of electricity charged into the electric vehicle by the charging pile within the preset time period”; and
“determining a type of the charging pile according to the proportion of the preset power charging capacity”.
The limitations that are considered exceptions from claims 9 and 15 are similar in scope to those of claim 1. These limitations are considered abstract ideas because these could be done mentally by an individual by gathering values of a charging parameter at specific time periods and performing calculations with the aid of pen and paper in order to determine the type of charging pile based on the calculations.
These judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application because managing information and performing calculations using a processor and a memory with instructions are generic structures, see MPEP 2106.05(f).
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exceptions because “determining a proportion of a preset power charging capacity of a charging pile within the preset time period according to the charging parameter, wherein the proportion of the preset power charging capacity is equal to a ratio of a first amount of electricity charged into the electric vehicle by the charging pile at a preset power within the preset time period to a total amount of electricity charged into the electric vehicle by the charging pile within the preset time period” are calculated from data obtained from the charging pile, see MPEP 2106.05(g).
Dependent claims 2-8, 10-14, and 16-20 are rejected because they only further the abstract idea without additional practical use or significant structure. The dependent claims further add to the abstract idea by providing additional details as to how the data is obtained, calculated, and determined.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
Claims 1, 8-9, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ling et al. (Chinese Patent CN-114548618-A; identified by the applicant in the Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) and cited in Foreign Office Actions).
With respect to independent claims 1, 9, and 15, Ling teaches a charging pile type recognition method (¶[22-23]).
Ling teaches a computer device comprising a memory and a processor, the memory storing a computer program executable by the processor to perform operations (¶[24-26]).
Ling teaches an electric vehicle service platform communicatively connected to an electric vehicle, the electric vehicle service platform comprising a processor and a memory storing a computer program executable by the processor to perform operations (¶[26]).
Ling teaches obtaining a charging parameter of an electric vehicle within a preset time period (¶[11]; “obtaining charging information of multiple electric vehicles when using the charging piles for charging; and determining the first state parameters of each charging pile based on the charging information”. One of ordinary skill understands this is done within a preset time period).
Ling teaches determining a preset power charging capacity of a charging pile within the preset time period according to the charging parameter, wherein the preset power charging capacity is equal a first amount of electricity charged into the electric vehicle by the charging pile at a preset power within the preset time period compared to a total amount of electricity charged into the electric vehicle by the charging pile within the preset time period (¶[12]; “... comparing the relationship between the actual charging current, the requested charging current, and the rated output current; determining the actual output current of the charging pile based on the comparison result ... obtaining the actual output capacity of the charging pile based on the actual output current ...”. One of ordinary skill understands the equivalent power values for these currents may be calculated).
Ling teaches determining a type of the charging pile according to the proportion of the preset power charging capacity (¶[12]; “...establishing a correspondence between the actual output capacity and the identity information.”).
However, Ling fails to explicitly teach determining a proportion, wherein the proportion is equal to a ratio.
Greater-than and less-than comparisons tell you which quantity is bigger or smaller, while ratios tell you how much bigger or smaller one quantity is relative to another as a form of comparison. These are related because, for example, a ratio greater than 1 means the first quantity is greater, a ratio less than 1 means it is smaller, and a ratio equal to 1 means the quantities are equal. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill to have adapted Ling’s method using a ratio based comparison in order to identify the charging pile. A benefit to this being knowing the size of the difference between the values when identifying a charging pile rather than just relying on whether the quantity is larger or smaller, thus, improving calculation reliability.
With respect to dependent claim 8, Ling teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 1. However, Ling fails to explicitly teach the limitations of claim 8. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to designate the preset power to be less than or equal to 7 kW, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955).
Claims 2-3, 5, 10-11, and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ling et al. (Chinese Patent CN-114548618-A) and further in view of Halker et al. (USPGPN 20180272885).
With respect to dependent claims 2, 10, and 16, Ling teaches the invention as discussed above in claims 1, 9, and 15, respectively. Further, Ling teaches obtaining vehicle data of the electric vehicle (¶[08]; “obtaining second state information of the vehicle to be charged”).
Ling teaches determining the charging parameter within the preset time period according to the vehicle data, wherein the charging parameter comprises a charging voltage and a charging current of the charging pile (¶[12]; “ ... determining the first state parameter of the charging pile based on the charging information includes ... based on the actual output current and the actual output voltage ...”).
However, Ling fails to explicitly teach obtained at a plurality of preset time intervals into which the preset time period is divided.
Halker teaches obtained at a plurality of preset time intervals into which the preset time period is divided (¶[103]; “The receiver 812 of the vehicle 808 can continually, periodically, or intermittently scan for a BCU identification...”).
In reviewing applicant’s disclosure in ¶[41] of the specification, though there is support for the claimed material selection, applicant fails to disclose any criticality to the particular selections. As such, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have adapted Halker’s recitation time-based data acquisition to Ling’s charging station identification method. The benefit of this being improving the convenience of a user when charging of the vehicle depends upon properly identifying the type of charging station without driver intervention (see ¶[42] of Halker).
With respect to dependent claims 3, 11, and 17, Ling teaches the invention as discussed above in claims 2, 10, and 16, respectively. Further, Ling teaches determining a charging power and a charging capacity according to the charging parameter as cited in claims 1, 9, and 15.
However, Ling fails to explicitly teach determining these for each for each of the preset time intervals and calculating the proportion of the preset power charging capacity according to the charging power and the charging capacity for each of the preset time intervals.
Halker teaches obtaining data periodically and Ling teaches determining charging power and charging capacity, thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have combined these teachings resulting in determining these for each for each of the preset time intervals and calculating the proportion of the preset power charging capacity according to the charging power and the charging capacity for each of the preset time intervals. The benefit of this being obtaining additional data points for comparison purposes.
With respect to dependent claim 5, Ling teaches the invention as discussed above in claim 2. However, Ling fails to explicitly teach the limitations of claim 5. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to designate each of the preset time intervals to be less than or equal to 30 seconds, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955).
Claims 6-7, 13-14, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ling et al. (Chinese Patent CN-114548618-A) and further in view of Li et al. (Chinese Patent CN-114347835-A; identified by the applicant in the IDS).
With respect to dependent claims 6, 13, and 19, Ling teaches the invention as discussed above in claims 1, 9, and 15, respectively. Further, Ling teaches determining the type of the charging pile according to a relative relationship (¶[45-46]).
However, Ling fails to explicitly teach a relative relationship between the proportion of the preset power charging capacity and a preset proportion threshold.
Li teaches a relative relationship between the proportion of the preset power charging capacity and a preset proportion threshold (¶[10, 13]; the charging pile type is determined according to a comparison of the power with a preset threshold).
Knowing the power levels of the charging stations helps with matching the right charger for the vehicle’s max charging input parameters and optimizes charging time and costs. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have adapted Li’s charging station selection method based on power levels to Ling’s charging station identification method. The benefit being a charging identification system that is flexible, reliable, and has low operating costs (see ¶[39] of Li).
With respect to dependent claims 7, 14, and 20, Ling teaches the invention as discussed above in claims 6, 13, and 19, respectively. Further, Ling teaches wherein the type of the charging pile is one of an Alternating Current charging pile and a Direct Current charging pile (¶[46]).
Ling teaches the determining of the type of the charging pile according to the relative relationship (¶[45]).
However, Ling fails to explicitly teach in response to determining that the proportion of the preset power charging capacity is greater than or equal to the preset proportion threshold, determining the type of the charging pile as the Alternating Current charging pile; and in response to determining that the proportion of the preset power charging capacity is less than the preset proportion threshold, determining the type of the charging pile as the Direct Current charging pile.
Li teaches in response to determining that the proportion of the preset power charging capacity is greater than or equal to the preset proportion threshold, determining the type of the charging pile as the Alternating Current charging pile; and in response to determining that the proportion of the preset power charging capacity is less than the preset proportion threshold, determining the type of the charging pile as the Direct Current charging pile (¶[13]; the AC charging pile and the DC charging piles are determined based on the power level threshold to the power charging capacity).
Li teaches the range of the AC pile to be less than 7kW and the range of the DC charging pile to be above 7kW, one of ordinary skill could have determined a different optimum range such as a DC pile to be less than 7kW and the range of the AC charging pile to be above 7kW, since discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have adapted Li’s charging station selection method based on power levels to Ling’s charging station identification method. The benefit being a charging identification system that is flexible, reliable, and has low operating costs (see ¶[39] of Li).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 12, and 18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The additional prior art identified by the applicant in the Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) and the prior art cited in the Foreign Office Actions were considered by the examiner, however, for examination purposes were not relied upon for citation purposes.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Frank A Silva whose telephone number is (703)756-1698. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 09:30 am -06:30 pm 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, Drew Dunn can be reached at 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.
/FRANK ALEXIS SILVA/ Examiner, Art Unit 2859
/NATHANIEL R PELTON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2859
Prosecution Insights