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 § 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 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea (mental step) without significantly more.
The claim(s) recite(s):
Claims 1 and 14 contain the following abstract ideas:
A Mental step/organizing human activity step of determining at least one recommended facility by evaluating each of the plurality of battery replacement facilities based on the condition information, the at least one recommended facility being a battery replacement facility recommended to the user out of the plurality of battery replacement facilities. The examiner interprets the limitation as simply looking at the attributes and conditions of a plurality of available charging station, comparing the attributes and conditions of the facilities to the user needs. This can be easily done in a mental step by a user. Also can be interpreted as organizing a human activity [filtering content, BASCOM Global Internet v. AT&T Mobility, LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1345-46, 119 USPQ2d 1236, 1239 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (finding that filtering content was an abstract idea].
Claim 3 contains the following abstract idea:
Organizing human activity of notifying the user that a better option is available after a previous selection was made.
Claims 2 and 4-13 (further expanding the abstract idea)
The following elements of claims 1-14 are more than the abstract ideas above:
Claims 1 and 14:
Performing the step of acquiring information about a user emphasized condition [general data gathering steps are extra post-solution activity];
Notifying a user of results of the mental step [extra post-solution activity]
Claim 14:
A control unit performing the determination; however the examiner interprets the control unit to be a general purpose computer performing the mental step/organizing human activity step of claim 14.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the applicant has not claimed any practical/tangible change to the system.
The claim(s) 1-14 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because claims 1-14 do not enact any physical changes to the system.
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)(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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5-7, 11 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by SAITO et al. (US 2024/0116393 A1, hereinafter SAITO).
Regarding claims 1 and 14 (claim 14 is considered representative for limitation matching purposes), SAITO discloses a server (See Figs.2-3, Item#4) and comprising:
an acquisition unit that acquires condition information about a condition emphasized by a user of an electric vehicle out of a plurality of conditions for a plurality of battery replacement facilities for replacement of a secondary battery mounted on the electric vehicle (See Fig.2 and 3, Item#59, disclose a suitable station determiner which receives user profile information including acceptable wait time, vehicle type and replacement frequency. Fig.7A and Pars.131-134, disclose the user enters/emphasizes conditions such as wait time and replacement frequency); and
a control unit that performs control of notifying the user of information about at least one recommended facility, the at least one recommended facility being a battery replacement facility recommended to the user out of the plurality of battery replacement facilities, wherein the control unit determines the at least one recommended facility based on the condition information (See Fig.3, Item#54 and Par.75, disclose a station notification presenter which presents the battery station information to the user via a user terminal 5. Figs.9(A)-10(b) disclose a presentation of the recommended charging stations according to the user emphasized conditions, Pars.10(A) and 10(b) disclose how the recommended replacement stations are changed based on the changed user requirements [4 battery packs instead of 2]).
Regarding claim 2, SAITO discloses the method for informing of a battery replacement facility according to claim 1 as discussed above, wherein the determining includes determining the at least one recommended facility by evaluating each of the plurality of battery replacement facilities such that an effect of evaluation based on the condition emphasized by the user out of the plurality of conditions is greater than an effect of evaluation based on a condition other than the condition emphasized by the user out of the plurality of conditions (See Pars.159-161, disclose prioritizing the user selection in displaying the recommended stations over other parameters not chosen by the user).
Regarding claim 5, SAITO discloses the method for informing of a battery replacement facility according to claim 1 as discussed above, wherein the determining includes determining the at least one recommended facility by evaluating each of the plurality of battery replacement facilities such that, when the emphasized condition includes a condition on a time required for the electric vehicle to arrive at the battery replacement facility, a battery replacement facility shorter in the time is evaluated more highly (See Fig.8, and Par.78, discloses the user may specify the date and time. The system then uses the data to recommend a charging station. If the user doesn’t specify the date and time, then the system provides the current available stations. Par.165 discloses the user specifying a future date and time and the system generating recommendations).
Regarding claim 6, SAITO discloses the method for informing of a battery replacement facility according to claim 1 as discussed above, wherein the determining includes determining the at least one recommended facility by evaluating each of the plurality of battery replacement facilities such that, when the emphasized condition includes a condition on a wait time until a battery replacement operation is performed, a battery replacement facility shorter in the wait time is evaluated more highly (See Pars. 37-38, 86 disclose recommending a station with a wait time shorter that the user acceptable wait time. When the wait time is set to 0 the stations with the shortest wait time are recommended [Par.93]).
Regarding claim 7, SAITO discloses the method for informing of a battery replacement facility according to claim 1 as discussed above, wherein the determining includes determining the at least one recommended facility by evaluating each of the plurality of battery replacement facilities such that, when the emphasized condition includes a condition of whether or not the battery replacement facility stores a specific type of battery, evaluation corresponding to a battery replacement facility storing the specific type of battery is higher than evaluation corresponding to a battery replacement facility not storing the specific type of battery (See Par.90, discloses the type of battery i.e. capacity is a factor used to determine the suitable battery replacement facility).
Regarding claim 11, SAITO discloses the method for informing of a battery replacement facility according to claim 1 as discussed above, further comprising:
when an operation of searching for a battery replacement facility for battery replacement out of the plurality of battery replacement facilities is performed on an input terminal of the user, performing control of prompting the user to enter the emphasized condition into the input terminal (See Figs.2-3, Item#5, discloses a user terminal, Par.50 and 80 disclose using the terminal to make reservations and display results. Pr.72 also discloses the user terminal is used to set the user profile used in the search process).
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) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SAITO.
Regarding claim 8, SAITO discloses the method for informing of a battery replacement facility according to claim 1 as discussed above, However SAITO does not disclose wherein the plurality of battery replacement facilities include a new battery replacement facility of a new type, and an old battery replacement facility of an old type, and the determining includes determining the at least one recommended facility by evaluating each of the plurality of battery replacement facilities such that, when the emphasized condition includes a condition on newness of the battery replacement facility, evaluation corresponding to the new battery replacement facility is higher than evaluation corresponding to the old battery replacement facility.
However, the examiner explains that SAITO evaluates parameters such as the distance and wait time of the charging station and that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to also evaluate the newness of the battery replacement facility and give higher evaluation than that corresponding to an older battery replacement facility for the benefit of ensuring user satisfaction by allowing the user to use a newer replacement facility with better functionality and amenities.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SAITO in view of WAKITANI et al. (US 2019/0241090 A1, hereinafter WAKITANI).
Regarding claim 4, SAITO discloses the method for informing of a battery replacement facility according to claim 1 as discussed above, However, SAITO dos not disclose wherein the determining includes determining the at least one recommended facility by evaluating each of the plurality of battery replacement facilities such that, when the emphasized condition includes a condition on a distance between the electric vehicle and the battery replacement facility, a battery replacement facility shorter in the distance is evaluated more highly.
WAKITANI discloses an information processing center for recommending a charging station to a user when the emphasized condition includes a condition on a distance between the electric vehicle and the battery replacement facility, a battery replacement facility shorter in the distance is evaluated more highly (See Par.26 and 142, discloses recommending a station that can be reached on the current charge and that the server recommends the station closest to the vehicle location. Par.253, discloses the user entering arrival date and time and battery standards).
SAITO and WAKITANI are analogous art since they both deal with systems for recommending stations to user based on user emphasized conditions.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention disclosed by SAITO with the teachings of WAKITANI by recommending the station closest to the vehicle for the benefit of ensuring the vehicle arrives at the replacement station before the vehicle battery runs out.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SAITO in view of CYR et al. (US 2020/0284599 A1, hereinafter CYR).
Regarding claim 9, SAITO discloses the method for informing of a battery replacement facility according to claim 1 as discussed above, However SAITO does not disclose wherein the determining includes determining the at least one recommended facility by evaluating each of the plurality of battery replacement facilities such that, when the emphasized condition includes a condition on a facility near the battery replacement facility, evaluation corresponding to a battery replacement facility with a specific facility located nearby is higher than evaluation corresponding to a battery replacement facility without the specific facility located nearby.
CYR discloses a travel route optimization system wherein a charging station closest a specific facility is evaluated higher than other charging stations (See Par.42, discloses recommending a charging station that is close to a restaurant favored by the driver).
SAITO and CYR are analogous art since they both deal with station recommendation systems for optimizing a driver’s experience.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention disclosed by SAITO with the teachings of CYR by evaluating stations closer to a specific facility higher than other stations for the benefit of allowing the user the chance to use the specific facility on their way to/from the station without requiring additional driving time.
Claim(s) 10 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SAITO in view of RAJMOHAN et al. (US 2022/0089056 A1, hereinafter RAJMOHAN).
Regarding claim 10, SAITO discloses the method for informing of a battery replacement facility according to claim 1 as discussed above, However, SAITO does not disclose wherein the at least one recommended facility includes a plurality of recommended facilities, and the notifying includes displaying a rank of evaluation corresponding to each of the plurality of recommended facilities on a display terminal of the user.
RAJMOHAN discloses a system for locating optimal charging stations, wherein the at least one recommended facility includes a plurality of recommended facilities, and the notifying includes displaying a rank of evaluation corresponding to each of the plurality of recommended facilities on a display terminal of the user (See Pars.36, 41 and 55, discloses ordering the charging stations that fulfill the user request by assigning a weight to each factor and calculating a score for each charging station based on the assigned weights/factors).
SAITO and RAJMOHAN are analogous art since they both deal with systems and methods for finding optimal charging stations based on user requirements.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention disclosed by SAITO with the teachings of RAJMOHAN by displaying a rank of evaluation corresponding to each of the plurality of recommended facilities on a display terminal of the user for the benefit of providing the user of a plurality of options while informing the user with their ranking based on his/her requirements.
Regarding claim 12, SAITO discloses the method for informing of a battery replacement facility according to claim 1 as discussed above, wherein SAITO discloses a plurality of battery replacement facility that match the user emphasized conditions (See Figs.9(A)-10(B)). However SAITO does not disclose wherein the at least one recommended facility includes a plurality of recommended facilities, and the notifying includes displaying a recommended facility evaluated to be higher than a predetermined rank out of the plurality of recommended facilities on a map on a display terminal of the user, without displaying a recommended facility evaluated to be lower than or equal to the predetermined rank out of the plurality of recommended facilities on the map.
RAJMOHAN discloses a system for locating optimal charging stations, wherein the at least one recommended facility includes a plurality of recommended facilities, and the notifying includes displaying a rank of evaluation corresponding to each of the plurality of recommended facilities on a display terminal of the user (See Par.55, discloses recommending the highest total score station as the optimal location).
SAITO and RAJMOHAN are analogous art since they both deal with systems and methods for finding optimal charging stations based on user requirements.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention disclosed by SAITO with the teachings of RAJMOHAN by ranking the plurality of recommended facilities according to their degree of matching the user requirements and recommending the highest ranked station for the benefit of providing the user with the charging station which best meets his requirements without confusing the user as which station best meets the requirements (See Par.55).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SAITO in view of PAIK et al. (US 2025/0003763 A1, hereinafter PAIK).
Regarding claim 13, SAITO discloses the method for informing of a battery replacement facility according to claim l as discussed above, However SAITO does not explicitly disclose wherein the notifying includes, when an operation of searching for a battery replacement facility for battery replacement out of the plurality of battery replacement facilities is performed by the user, and the condition information is not acquired, displaying all battery replacement facilities located within a predetermined distance from the electric vehicle out of the plurality of battery replacement facilities on a map on a display terminal of the user.
PAIK discloses a charging station recommendation system wherein the notifying includes, when an operation of searching for a battery replacement facility for battery replacement out of the plurality of battery replacement facilities is performed by the user, and the condition information is not acquired, displaying all battery replacement facilities located within a predetermined distance from the electric vehicle out of the plurality of battery replacement facilities on a map on a display terminal of the user (See Fig.8 an Par.100, disclose displaying all the charging stations in an area until a recommendation request is received. After the recommendation request is received, the display changes to show the recommended stations based on the recommendation request).
SAITO and PAIK are analogous art since they both deal with station recommendation systems.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention disclosed by SAITO with the teachings of PAIK by initially displaying all the battery replacement facilities with a predetermined area for the benefit of allowing the user to get an overview of the amount and location of battery replacement facilities surrounding his location.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SAITO in view of SHIRAKAWA et al. (US 2020/0003571 A1, hereinafter SHIRAKAWA).
Regarding claim 3, SAITO discloses the method for informing of a battery replacement facility according to claim 1 as discussed above, However, SAITO does not disclose further comprising: when the recommended facility notified by the notifying is reserved by the user, and then another battery replacement facility is evaluated more highly than the reserved recommended facility, prompting the user to perform battery replacement in the another battery replacement facility.
SHIRAKAWA discloses a vehicle station reservation system comprising evaluating a reservation made by the user and determining that a reservation which better matches user needs is present and alert the user to its presence to get approval for charging the previous reservation (See Par.234).
SAITO and SHIRAKAWA are analogous art since they both deal with reservation systems.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention disclosed by SAITO with the teachings of SHIRAKAWA by continuing to monitor and evaluate the parameters to make sure that user selection remains the best option and to offer the user a chance to change their selection when a better offer is available for the benefit of improving user experience.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AHMED H OMAR whose telephone number is (571)270-7165. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00 am -7:00 PM EST.
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.
/AHMED H OMAR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2859
Prosecution Insights