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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the amendment filed 11/10/2025 (claimed priority date 10/28/2022):
Claims 2-3 and 5-21 have been examined.
Claims 1 and 4 have been canceled by Applicant.
Claims2, 11-12, 17 and 21 have been amended by Applicant.
Legend: “Under BRI” = “under broadest reasonable interpretation;”
“[Prior Art/Analogous/Non-Analogous Art Reference] discloses through the invention” means “See/read entire document;” Paragraph [No..] = e.g., Para [0005] = paragraph 5; P = page, e.g., p4 = page 4; C = column, e.g. c3 = column 3;
L = line, e.g., l25 = line 25; l25-36 = lines 25 through 36.
Response to Amendment
Drawings
1. Applicant’s amendments and arguments have overcome the drawings objections to from the previous Office Action.
Specification
1. Applicant’s amendments and arguments have overcome the specification objections to from the previous Office Action.
Claim Objections
1. Applicant’s amendments have overcome the claim 17 objections to from the previous Office Action.
2. Claim 12 objected to because of the following informalities: it is recommended to rewrite claim 12 as the following:
12. (Currently Amended) The electric vehicle charging system of claim 11, comprising:
a charging interface unit configured to couple to an electric vehicle charging port of multiple electric vehicles requesting a charging operation; and where an autonomous robot couples to the charging interface unit and selectively connects to any one of the electric vehicles coupled to the charging interface unit such that the charging interface unit provides a single connection point between the charging robot and charging ports of the multiple electric vehicles connected thereto.
Appropriate correction is required.
3. Claim 21 objected to because of the following informalities: it is recommended to rewrite claim 21 as the following:
21. (Currently Amended) An electric vehicle charging system comprising:
a system controller to receive charging requests from electric vehicles within a defined parking lot;
plurality of autonomous charging robots each having a battery pack, where each autonomous robot to communicate with the system controller and to autonomously drive withing the parking lot to a corresponding one of the electric vehicles requested a charge, as selected by the system controller, each charging robot including an interface unit to automatically couple to a charging port of the corresponding selected electric vehicle,
where the system controller is configured to:
generate a charging schedule including an order in which the electric vehicles are to be charged based on a plurality of charging factors and to dynamically update the order as charging operations of electric vehicles are completed and as additional electric vehicles within the parking lot request charging schedule to maximize a number of electric vehicles to be charged in a given time period by the plurality of charging robots; and
select from the charging schedule the corresponding selected electric vehicle for charging by each autonomous charging robot; each autonomous charging robot comprising:
the charging battery pack;
an on-board bot control unit;
a bot interface unit; and
a battery powered drive system; and
where the battery powered drive system is controlled by the bot control unit to autonomously drive and maneuver the charging robot between a battery pack charging facility and the electric vehicle requesting a charge; and
where the battery pack charging facility includes a battery rack configured to automatically unload a depleted charging battery pack and automatically load a charged charging battery pack onto the charging robot.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
1. Applicant appears not to argue, in remarks filed on 11/10/2025, the claim interpretation (invoking 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitations in claims 3, 6-7, 11-21) from the previous office action.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 101
1. Applicant’s amendments have overcome the 101 rejections to claim 4 from the previous Office Action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
1. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
1.1 Claims 2-3 and 5-10 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
1.1.1 Claim 2 recites the limitations "the parking lot;” “the storage facility;" “the selected electric vehicle” in the body of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
1.1.2 Claim 2 recites the limitations “the autonomous charging robot, as directed by the system controller, autonomously drives from the storage facility to one of the electric vehicles requesting a charge, as selected by the system controller,” which is unclear to understand the following: if the “system controller” directs the autonomous charging robot to autonomously drive from storage facility to one of the electric vehicles requesting a charge, then WHY, OR HOW the “system controller” selects which vehicle to be charged with the autonomous charging robot, if the autonomous charging robot has already been directed to autonomously drive from storage facility to one of the electric vehicles that does require a charge, which renders the claim indefinite. Clarification is required.
1.1.2.a Claim 2 recites the limitations “the autonomous charging robot … charges the selected electric vehicle using the charging battery pack, and autonomously return to the charging facility when not charging an electric vehicle,” wherein it is unclear to understand, in particular, what “an electric” when not charging, the autonomous charging robot autonomously returns to the charging facility, whether this is the same electric vehicle that has just been charged by the autonomous charging robot, or this is another electric vehicle, different from the electric vehicle that has just been charged by the autonomous charging robot, or what or how, which renders the claim indefinite. Clarification is required.
For the examination purposes, in view of the specification, and under BRI, the Examiner will interpret the currently claimed “an autonomous charging robot having a charging battery pack, where the autonomous charging robot, as directed by the system controller, autonomously drives from the storage facility to one of the electric vehicles requesting a charge, as selected by the system controller, and charges the selected electric vehicle using the charging battery pack, and autonomously return to the charging facility when not charging an electric vehicle” as “an autonomous charging robot having a charging battery pack, where the autonomous charging robot, as directed by the system controller, autonomously drives from the storage facility to one of the electric vehicles requesting a charge, charging of the electric vehicle is completed.”
1.1.2 Claims 3 and 5-10 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, because of their dependencies on rejected independent claim 2, and for failing to cure the deficiencies listed above.
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.
1. Claims 2-3 and 6-9, 11-14 and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rastegar (US20220048195) in view of LEE (US20200101855).
As per claim 2, Rastegar discloses, under BRI, through the invention (see entire document), an electric vehicle charging system (see entire document, particularly Para [0011, 0017] – teaching, under BRI, structure a system, i.e., a “Charging Enterprise” (CE), for charging electric vehicles of various type irrespective of where they are parked) comprising:
a system controller to receive charging operation request from electric vehicle in a designated parking lot (see entire document, particularly Para [0011, 0017] – teaching, under BRI, structure a system, i.e., a “Charging Enterprise” (CE), for charging electric vehicles of various type irrespective of where they are parked; with such an CE, user that contacts a central location (or a local provided location) via a mobile telephone app or online computer or any other means of communications that may be provided, indicate which EV is to be charged, provides the EV location, the amount of electrical energy that the EV batteries have to be charged, the time and date that the EV is available for charging and the duration of time that the EV is available for charging; the “Charging Enterprise” that will then send a robotic vehicle to the location and charge the EV batteries to the requested level);
a charging facility within the parking lot (see entire document, particularly Para [0006] – teaching, under BRI, charging stations, which may be a charging station similar to a gasoline station, or park at a few locations that are provided with charging facilities in parking garages; malls, hotel, restaurant, work, airport, etc., parking lots);
an autonomous charging robot having a charging battery pack (see entire document, particularly fig. 6-7, 10, Para [0033, 0040, 0058-0060]), where the autonomous charging robot, as directed by the system controller, autonomously drives from the storage facility to one of the electric vehicles requesting a charge, and charges the selected electric vehicle using the charging battery pack (see entire document, particularly fig. 10, Para [0011-0020; 0033, 0039-0040, 0058-0065, 0069, 0071, 0074-0076] – teaching, under BRI, mobile robots commonly provided with two-way communication systems with a central control system, which may be through internet, to receive commands and navigation information and to perform the required tasks; “Charging Enterprise” (CE), such as on an app on a mobile device or a website; customer that provides a credit card or other means of payment for the service (e.g., Venmo, EZ or Sun Pass) and the list of EVs and their license plate number as well as other characteristics (model, year, . . . , that would enable the CE to identify and provide the requested service (i.e., charging the batteries, and other possible related services)).
Rastegar does not explicitly disclose through the invention, or is missing charging robot that autonomously returns to the charging facility when charging of the electric vehicle is completed.
However, LEE discloses, under BRI, through the invention (see entire document), particularly in fig. 1, Para [0018, 0027, 0059, 0075] – teaching under BRI, vehicle charging robot 110 that receives a request for charging a target vehicle from the user, who inputs the request for charging the target vehicle using an application installed on a smart device (e.g., a cellular phone, a computer, or a center console device of the target vehicle); the vehicle charging robot 110 that obtains a target position corresponding to a position at which the target vehicle is parked, and moves to the target position through autonomous driving; the vehicle charging robot 110 that charges the target vehicle (once the vehicle charging robot 110 reaches the target position); when charging of the target vehicle is completed, the vehicle charging robot 110 that returns to the initial position.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, who is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automation, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the teaching of Rastegar by incorporating, applying and utilizing the above steps, technique and features as taught by LEE, who is in the same field of endeavor. A person of ordinary skill, ordinary creativity would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of and/or in order to move to an initial position in response to determining that a charging of the target vehicle is completed (see entire LEE document, particularly Para [0018, 0059]).
As per claim 3, Rastegar further discloses, under BRI, through the invention (see entire document), charging robot that drives to the selected electric vehicle as directed by the system controller (see entire document, teaching, under BRI, these limitations/features, particularly in Para [0039, 0058, 0070]), the charging robot including an interface unit (see entire document, teaching, under BRI, these limitations/features, particularly in Para [0011, 0017] – teaching, under BRI, user that contacts a central location (or a local provided location) via a mobile telephone app or online computer or any other means of communications that may be provided) to automatically couple to a charging port of the selected electric vehicle (see entire document, teaching, under BRI, these limitations/features, particularly in Para [0039, 0058, 0070]).
As per claim 6, Rastegar further discloses, under BRI, through the invention (see entire document), autonomous charging robot comprising: the charging battery pack; an on-board bot control unit; a bot interface unit; and a battery powered drive system; and where the battery powered drive system is controlled by the bot control unit to autonomously drive and maneuver the charging robot between a battery pack charging facility and the electric vehicle requesting a charge (see entire document, teaching, under BRI, these limitations/features particularly in fig. 6-7, 10, Para [0011-0020; 0033, 0039-0040, 0058-0065, 0069, 0071, 0074-0076]).
As per claim 7, Rastegar further discloses, under BRI, through the invention (see entire document), charging robot that automatically couples the charging battery to the electric vehicle requesting a charge via the bot interface unit and automatically charges the electric vehicle via the charging battery (see entire document, teaching, under BRI, these limitations/features particularly in fig. 6-7, 10, Para [0011, 0017, 0033, 0040, 0058-0059, 0061-0063]).
As per claim 8, Rastegar further discloses, under BRI, through the invention (see entire document), charging robot comprising a charging arm for automatically coupling the charging robot to an electric vehicle charging port (see entire document, teaching, under BRI, these limitations/features particularly in fig. 3, 7, 10, Para [0059, 0061-0063]).
As per claim 9, Rastegar further discloses, under BRI, through the invention (see entire document), charging arm as a controllable articulating arm (see entire document, teaching, under BRI, these limitations/features particularly in fig. 3, 7, 10, Para [0059, 0061-0063]).
As per claim 11, Rastegar discloses, under BRI, through the invention (see entire document), an electric vehicle charging system comprising: a system controller to communicate with electric vehicles within a defined parking lot requesting a charging operation to charge a vehicle battery pack of the electric vehicle (see entire document, teaching, under BRI, these limitations/features, particularly in Para [0033, 0040, 0058-0060]), the system controller to:
generate a charging schedule for the electric vehicles requesting a charge including an order in which the electric vehicles are to be charged based on a plurality of charging factors, the system controller to dynamically update the order as charging operations of electric vehicles are complete and as additional electric vehicles within the parking lot request a charging operation (see entire document, teaching, under BRI, these limitations/features particularly in fig. 6-7, 10, Para [0011-0020; 0033, 0039-0040, 0058-0065, 0069, 0071, 0074-0076]); and select from the charging schedule electric vehicles for charging based on the order (see entire document, teaching, under BRI, these limitations/features, particularly in Para [0011, 0017- 0018, 0020, 0034, 0041, 0071-0076)); and
a charging robot having a charging battery pack, the charging robot to drive from a location within the defined parking lot to corresponding selected electric vehicle as directed by the system controller, the charging robot including a bot interface unit to automatically couple to a charging port of the corresponding selected electric vehicle and charge the vehicle battery pack from the charging battery pack (see entire document, teaching, under BRI, these limitations/features particularly in fig. 6-7, 10, Para [0011, 0017, 0033, 0040, 0058-0059, 0061-0063]), the charging schedule to charge electric vehicle in a given time period by the charging robot (see entire document, teaching, under BRI, these limitations/features, particularly in Para [0011, 0017- 0018, 0020, 0034, 0041, 0071-0076)).
Rastegar does not explicitly disclose through the invention, or is missing a plurality of charging robots, maximizing a number of electric vehicles to be charged in a given time period by the plurality of charging robots.
However, LEE discloses, under BRI, through the invention (see entire document), particularly in fig. 1, Para [0056] – teaching under BRI, a suitable number of vehicle charging robots disposed in the parking lot based on the charging and discharging performance of the vehicle charging robot 110 and the number of electric vehicles corresponding to a capacity of the parking lot.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, who is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automation, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the teaching of Rastegar by incorporating, applying and utilizing the above steps, technique and features as taught by LEE, who is in the same field of endeavor. A person of ordinary skill, ordinary creativity would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of and/or in order to dispose suitable number of vehicle charging robots in the parking lot based on the charging and discharging performance of the vehicle charging robot and the number of electric vehicles corresponding to a capacity of the parking lot (see entire LEE document, particularly Para [0056]).
As per claim 12, Rastegar further discloses, under BRI, through the invention (see entire document), a charging interface unit configured to couple to an electric vehicle charging port of multiple electric vehicles requesting a charging operation; and where an autonomous robot couples to the charging interface unit and selectively connects to any one of the electric vehicles coupled to the charging interface unit such that the charging interface unit provides a single connection point between the charging robot and charging ports of the multiple electric vehicles connected thereto (see entire document, teaching, under BRI, these limitations/features particularly in fig. 7, Para [0015-0016, 0021, 0047-0048, 0057]).
Rastegar does not explicitly disclose through the invention, or is missing an autonomous robot of the plurality of autonomous robots.
However, LEE discloses, under BRI, through the invention (see entire document), particularly in fig. 1, Para [0056] – teaching under BRI, a suitable number of vehicle charging robots disposed in the parking lot based on the charging and discharging performance of the vehicle charging robot 110 and the number of electric vehicles corresponding to a capacity of the parking lot.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, who is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automation, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the teaching of Rastegar by incorporating, applying and utilizing the above steps, technique and features as taught by LEE, who is in the same field of endeavor. A person of ordinary skill, ordinary creativity would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of and/or in order to dispose suitable number of vehicle charging robots in the parking lot based on the charging and discharging performance of the vehicle charging robot and the number of electric vehicles corresponding to a capacity of the parking lot (see entire LEE document, particularly Para [0056]).
As per claim 13, Rastegar further discloses, under BRI, through the invention (see entire document), charging interface unit comprising a bot coupling mechanism that allows the charging robot to automatically couple to the charging interface unit (see entire document, teaching, under BRI, these limitations/features particularly in fig.3, 7, 10, Para [0015-0016, 0021, 0047-0048, 0057, 0059, 0061-0063]).
As per claim 14, Rastegar further discloses, under BRI, through the invention (see entire document),
a charging cable extending from the charging interface unit for coupling the charging interface unit to an electric vehicle requesting a charging (see entire document, teaching, under BRI, these limitations/features particularly in fig. 7, Para [0043, 0045, 0047-0048, 0057, 0059, 0061-0062] – teaching, under BRI, charging cable 43).
As per claim 16, Rastegar further discloses, under BRI, through the invention (see entire document), charging interface unit that includes a control system that wirelessly communicates with the system controller (see entire document, teaching, under BRI, these limitations/features particularly in fig.3, 7, 10, Para [0015-0016, 0021, 0047-0048, 0057, 0059-0063]).
As per claim 17, Rastegar further discloses, under BRI, through the invention (see entire document), charging interface unit comprising multiple charging cables extending from the charging interface unit for coupling the charging interface unit to the multiple electric vehicles requesting a charge (see entire document, teaching, under BRI, these limitations/features particularly in Para [0034, 0048], claim 4).
As per claim 18, Rastegar further discloses, under BRI, through the invention (see entire document), a unique identifier associated with the charging interface unit that allows the charging robot to locate the charging interface unit and mechanically couple to the robot coupling mechanism (see entire document, teaching, under BRI, these limitations/features particularly in Para [0013, 0039, 0061-0062, 0068-0069]).
As per claim 19, Rastegar further discloses, under BRI, through the invention (see entire document), charging interface unit that has a top surface, and the coupling mechanism is accessible at the top surface, and where during a charging operation the charging robot is positioned over the charging interface unit and electrically coupled to the coupling mechanism (see entire document, teaching, under BRI, these limitations/features particularly in fig. 6-7, 10).
2. Claims 5 and 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Rastegar and LEE, further in view of Sohmshetty (US20200206962).
As per claim 5, Rastegar does not explicitly disclose, through the invention, or is missing, charging battery pack as an exchangeable battery pack.
However, Sohmshetty discloses, under BRI, these limitations/feature, through the invention (see entire document), particularly in fig. 1, 5a-b, Para [0004, 0011, 0013-0014, 0017-0018, 0042, 0044, 0045, 0048] – teaching, under BRI, exchanging/swapping and charging robot batteries 212 between mobile robots 106 and battery charging stations 104 performed by battery charging stations 104 and/or mobile robots 106.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, who is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automation, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the teaching of Rastegar by incorporating, applying and utilizing the above steps, technique and features as taught by Sohmshetty, who is in the same field of endeavor. A person of ordinary skill, ordinary creativity would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of and/or in order to exchange robot batteries between at least one mobile robot and at least one battery charging station; to enhance sidewalk delivery robots to exchange robot batteries with a depleted charge for robot batteries with a full or fuller charge located at a battery charging station disposed within a geographic location, such as an urban environment or elsewhere; to allow the mobile robots to replace or “swap” their depleted batteries with charged batteries to extend their delivery range without having to stop and wait for their batteries to charge (see entire Sohmshetty document, particularly Para [0011]).
As per claim 21, Rastegar discloses, under BRI, through the invention (see entire document), a system controller to receive charging requests from electric vehicles within a defined parking lot (see entire document, particularly Para [0011, 0017]);
autonomous charging robot having a battery pack, where autonomous robot to communicate with the system controller and to autonomously drive withing the parking lot to a corresponding one of the electric vehicles requested a charge, as selected by the system controller, charging robot including an interface unit to automatically couple to a charging port of the corresponding selected electric vehicle,
where the system controller is configured to:
generate a charging schedule including an order in which the electric vehicles are to be charged based on a plurality of charging factors and to dynamically update the order as charging operations of electric vehicles are completed and as additional electric vehicles within the parking lot request charging schedule to maximize a number of electric vehicles to be charged in a given time period by the plurality of charging robots; and
select from the charging schedule the corresponding selected electric vehicle for charging by each autonomous charging robot; each autonomous charging robot comprising:
the charging battery pack;
an on-board bot control unit;
a bot interface unit; and
a battery powered drive system; and
where the battery powered drive system is controlled by the bot control unit to autonomously drive and maneuver the charging robot between a battery pack charging facility and the electric vehicle requesting a charge.
(The presented above limitations/features in claim 21 are similar to the limitations/features recited in claims 2, 6-7 and 11, therefore, the above presented limitations/features in claim 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Rastegar in view of LEE as applied to claims 2, 6-7 and 11 above).
Rastegar does not explicitly disclose, through the invention, or is missing, plurality of autonomous charging robots; maximizing a number of electric vehicles to be charged in a given time period by the plurality of charging robots; battery pack charging facility that includes a battery rack configured to automatically unload a depleted charging battery pack and automatically load a charged charging battery pack onto the charging robot.
However, LEE discloses, under BRI, through the invention (see entire document), particularly in fig. 1, Para [0056] – teaching under BRI, a suitable number of vehicle charging robots disposed in the parking lot based on the charging and discharging performance of the vehicle charging robot 110 and the number of electric vehicles corresponding to a capacity of the parking lot.
Sohmshetty, in turn, discloses, under BRI, through the invention (see entire document), particularly in fig. 1, 5a-b, Para [0004, 0011, 0013-0014, 0017-0018, 0042, 0044, 0045, 0048] – teaching, under BRI, exchanging/swapping and charging robot batteries 212 between mobile robots 106 and battery charging stations 104 performed by battery charging stations 104 and/or mobile robots 106.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, who is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automation, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the teaching of Rastegar by incorporating, applying and utilizing the above steps, technique and features as taught by LEE, who is in the same field of endeavor. A person of ordinary skill, ordinary creativity would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of and/or in order to dispose suitable number of vehicle charging robots in the parking lot based on the charging and discharging performance of the vehicle charging robot and the number of electric vehicles corresponding to a capacity of the parking lot (see entire LEE document, particularly Para [0056]); and
by incorporating, applying and utilizing the above steps, technique and features as taught by Sohmshetty, who is in the same field of endeavor. A person of ordinary skill, ordinary creativity would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of and/or in order to exchange robot batteries between at least one mobile robot and at least one battery charging station; to enhance sidewalk delivery robots to exchange robot batteries with a depleted charge for robot batteries with a full or fuller charge located at a battery charging station disposed within a geographic location, such as an urban environment or elsewhere; to allow the mobile robots to replace or “swap” their depleted batteries with charged batteries to extend their delivery range without having to stop and wait for their batteries to charge (see entire Sohmshetty document, particularly Para [0011]).
3. Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Rastegar and LEE, further in view of SONG (WO2020042592A1).
As per claim 10, Rastegar does not explicitly disclose, through the invention, or is missing, charging robot further comprising a DC-DC converter and a DC-AC converter for converting the battery voltage to an electric vehicle target charging voltage.
However, SONG discloses, under BRI, these limitations/feature, through the invention (see entire document, particularly in Para [0016-0019, 0052-0055, 0077, 0080]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, who is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automation, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the teaching of Rastegar by incorporating, applying and utilizing the above steps, technique and features as taught by SONG, who is in the same field of endeavor. A person of ordinary skill, ordinary creativity would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of and/or in order for a mobile charging robot with a fuel cell to receive the charging request information sent by the server, generate a driving path to the location coordinates, drive along the driving path according to the electric energy generated by the fuel cell, and charge the electric vehicle on the parking space (see entire SONG document, particularly Para [0009]).
4. Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Rastegar and LEE, further in view of HAMILTON (GB2540174 ).
As per claim 15, Rastegar does not explicitly disclose, through the invention, or is missing, bot coupling mechanism that includes a controllable door for allowing controlled access to the charging interface unit by a charging robot.
However, HAMILTON discloses, under BRI, these limitations/feature, through the invention (see entire document, particularly in fig. 1-2, 4-6, abstract, numerous lines on numerous pages, e.g., lines 16-20 on page 11 – teaching, under BRI, charge port that has a charge port door (flap, cover, lid), 22, which is lockable; unlocking of the charge-port door 22 as independently controllable so that the charge-port door 22 can be unlocked even if the rest of the vehicle 10 remains in a locked state).
Additionally, the Examiner finds that HAMILTON reference is an Analogous prior art, and kindly presents that “… it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of applicant’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the applicant was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, the Examiner finds that even if HAMILTON does not teach on a charging autonomously traveling robot, the Examine finds that both Applicant and HAMILTON teach on a controllable door for charging port/connector/interface on a vehicle, the door that is independently controllable so when it is controlled to unlock/open other doors on a vehicle do not unlock/open.
Additionally, in response to the argument that the HAMILTON reference is a Non-Analogous prior art, the Examiner kindly presents that “[a] reference is reasonably pertinent if, even though it may be in a different field from that of the inventor's endeavor, it is one which, because of the matter with which it deals, logically would have commended itself to an inventor's attention in considering his problem.” In other words, “familiar items may have obvious uses beyond their primary purposes.”
In re ICON Health and Fitness, Inc., 496 F.3d 1374, 1379-80 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citations omitted). Moreover, in making a determination with regard to obviousness, we should not limit ourselves to looking only at the problem Appellant was trying to solve. The question is not whether the combination was obvious to Appellant but whether it was obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art. Thus, “[u]nder the correct analysis, any need or problem known in the field of endeavor at the time of invention and addressed by the patent can provide a reason for combining the elements in the manner claimed.” KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 420 (2007).
Additionally, in regards to the fact that an excessive number of references has been combined, the Examiner kindly presents that “… reliance on a large number of references in a rejection does not, without more, weigh against the obviousness of the claimed invention.” See In re Gorman, 933 F.2d 982, 18 USPQ2d 1885 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, who is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automation, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the teaching of Rastegar by incorporating, applying and utilizing the above steps, technique and features as taught by HAMILTON, who is in the same field of endeavor. A person of ordinary skill, ordinary creativity would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of and/or in order to enhance charging of an electric vehicle and in particular selective securing of apparatus used to facilitate charging (see entire HAMILTON document, particularly page 1, l3-5).
5. Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Rastegar and LEE, further in view of DING (CN209526271U).
As per claim 20, Rastegar does not explicitly disclose, through the invention, or is missing, coupling mechanism as a magnetic port and the charging robot that includes a bot interface unit that is an electromagnetic coupling device that electromagnetically couples the charging bot to the coupling mechanism magnetic port.
However, DING discloses, under BRI, these limitations/feature, through the invention (see entire document, particularly in fig. 1-2, abstract, numerous paragraphs, Para [0008-0025, 0033, 0042, 0045-0056, 0062-0066]).
Additionally, the Examiner finds that DING reference is an Analogous prior art, and kindly presents that “… it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of applicant’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the applicant was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, the Examiner finds that even if DING does not teach on a charging autonomously traveling robot, the Examine finds that both Applicant and DING teach on a magnetic/electromagnetic coupling between charging device and electric vehicle required charging.
Additionally, in response to the argument that the DING reference is a Non-Analogous prior art, the Examiner kindly presents that “[a] reference is reasonably pertinent if, even though it may be in a different field from that of the inventor's endeavor, it is one which, because of the matter with which it deals, logically would have commended itself to an inventor's attention in considering his problem.” In other words, “familiar items may have obvious uses beyond their primary purposes.”
In re ICON Health and Fitness, Inc., 496 F.3d 1374, 1379-80 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citations omitted). Moreover, in making a determination with regard to obviousness, we should not limit ourselves to looking only at the problem Appellant was trying to solve. The question is not whether the combination was obvious to Appellant but whether it was obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art. Thus, “[u]nder the correct analysis, any need or problem known in the field of endeavor at the time of invention and addressed by the patent can provide a reason for combining the elements in the manner claimed.” KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 420 (2007).
Additionally, in regards to the fact that an excessive number of references has been combined, the Examiner kindly presents that “… reliance on a large number of references in a rejection does not, without more, weigh against the obviousness of the claimed invention.” See In re Gorman, 933 F.2d 982, 18 USPQ2d 1885 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, who is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automation, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the teaching of Rastegar by incorporating, applying and utilizing the above steps, technique and features as taught by DING, who is in the same field of endeavor. A person of ordinary skill, ordinary creativity would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of and/or in order to fix charging gun to the car's socket through a magnetic part, when charging an electric car, to make plugging and unplugging the charging gun more convenient and labor-saving, to facilitate the user's operation, and will not to cause wear on the plug, thereby extending the service life of the plug (see entire DING document, particularly Para [0025]).
RELEVANT PRIOR ART THAT WAS CITED BUT NOT APPLIED
The following relevant prior art references that were found, by the Examiner while performing initial and/or additional search, cited but not applied:
LANKES (US20230242156) – (see entire LANKES document, particularly abstract – teaching a method for charging an electric vehicle, which includes a charging station charging an electric vehicle connected to the charging station and situated at a charging location of the charging station; related system for charging an electric vehicle).
Wu (US20190315240) – (see entire Wu document, particularly abstract – teaching an autonomous electric vehicle charger that comprises a charging robot configured to automatically seek an electric vehicle for charging wherein the charging robot includes a plurality of motorized wheels configured to maneuver the charging robot, a plurality of sensors configured to guide the charging robot, a charging plug configured to be coupled to a receptacle for charging the electric vehicle, an elevated charging platform configured to be raised for coupling the charging plug to the receptacle for charging the electric vehicle, and a retractable power cord configured to be coupled to a power supply for supplying power to the electric vehicle).
Response to Arguments
1. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 2-3 and 5-21 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to any of the references being used in the current rejection.
2. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 2-3 and 5-21 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Primary Examiner YURI KAN, P.E., whose phone number is 571-270-3978. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday.
If attempts to reach the examiner by phone are unsuccessful, you may contact the examiner's supervisor, Mr. Jelani Smith, who can be reached on 571-270-3969. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/YURI KAN, P.E./Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662