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 .
This action is responsive to communications filed on 12/20/2023. As per claims on 12/20/2023
Claims 1-5 are currently pending.
Claims 1, 5 are independent claim.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of paper required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Prior Art
Listed herein below are the prior art references relied upon in this office action:
Penilla et al. (US 2020/0144838 A1, which has a priority date of 04/22/2011), referred to as Penilla herein.
Corbett et al. (US 2013/0338820 A1, which has a priority date of 05/30/2012), referred to as Corbett herein.
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 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Penilla.
Regarding Claim 1, Penilla teaches a method of charging an electrified vehicle using charging equipment configured to automatically charge the electrified vehicle, (“A robot for charging a vehicle is provided. The robot has wheels or configured for a track for the robot to automatically move to the vehicle to provide charge to a battery of the vehicle.” (Abstract) and “An articulating arm of the robot. The articulating arm is configured for movement that enables the articulating arm to automatically connect to a connector of the vehicle after the robot moves in position beside the vehicle for providing charge to the battery of the vehicle.” (pg. 1, ¶ 0007), explicitly disclosing a method of charging an electrified vehicle using equipment configured to automatically charge it);
the method comprising: performing user authentication through communication between the charging equipment and a user terminal linked to the electrified vehicle; and (“Via a user interface, a user can identify how much charge is needed, or identify the vehicle or account of the user.” (pg. 7, ¶ 0104) and “the user's account can have a password to enable access to any number of CUs.” (pg. 7, ¶ 0106), showing the user interacting with the charging terminal to authenticate themselves using account credentials including a password. Additionally, Fig 18 shows a “Login” screen with “User name” and “Password” fields, requiring the user to enter authenticating information through the user terminal (mobile app) linked to the electrified vehicle before accessing charging services);
when the user authentication is successful and the charging equipment is able to charge the electrified vehicle, notifying the user terminal that the electrified vehicle is chargeable. (“The user will receive notifications of when charge starts, of estimated time till charge complete and when the EV is fully charged or charged to the level ordered by the user.” (pg. 7, ¶ 0101) and Fig 15 explicitly shows a sequence of notifications sent to the user’s device at different times. These notifications are sent after the system has confirmed the user’s account and determined the vehicle can be charged. Additionally, Fig 3 shows notifications regarding the status of all charging units at charge bank and notifies the user when a CU is available);
therefore, Penilla anticipated all the limitations of claim 1.
Regarding Claim 5, recites an electrified vehicle charging system comprising charging equipment that executes the method of charging an electrified vehicle according to claim 1. Claim 5, a system claim that incorporates the method of Claim 1, is being rejected using the same reasons as Claim 1.
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.
Claim(s) 2,3,4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Penilla in view of Corbett.
Regarding Claim 2, Penilla teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein: the performing of the user authentication includes receiving, by the charging equipment, an electronic key that allows specifying an individual from the user terminal, and (Fig 18 shows the App “Login” screen with “User name” and “Password” fields, requiring the user to enter authenticating information through the user terminal (mobile app) linked to the electrified vehicle before accessing charging services. The user’s password transmitted from the user terminal (mobile app) to the charging equipment functions as an electronic key that allows specifying an individual. Additionally, “the user's account can have a password to enable access to any number of CUs.” (pg. 7, ¶ 0106), meaning the password uniquely identifies and authenticates the individual user, allowing access to their specific account and linked electrifies vehicle);
Penilla also teaches determining, by the charging equipment, whether the user authentication is successful using the electronic key;( Fig 18 shows the App “Login” screen with “User name” and “Password” fields, meaning the user must log in before being granted access to charging services. Thus, the system only allows the user to proceed to set charge amounts and notifications upon successful credential entry. Therefore, by allowing the user to continue the process, it is understood that authentication was successful; otherwise, the system would not grant access to the account and linked CU. Additionally, “the user's account can have a password to enable access to any number of CUs.” (pg. 7, ¶ 0106), meaning access is granted only when the correct password (electronic key) is provided. This shows a direct success or failure authentication);
Penilla teaches the notifying of the user terminal includes notifying the user terminal of information about charging of the electrified vehicle that has been enabled; (“The user will receive notifications of when charge starts, of estimated time till charge complete and when the EV is fully charged or charged to the level ordered by the user.” (pg. 7, ¶ 0101) and “Notifications for the user, once charge has begun can also be set, either at the CU or on the user's device graphical user interface, or any device connected to the Internet.” (pg. 7, ¶ 0096), thus notifying the user’s mobile device of charging information, specifically when the charging starts, therefore the charging was enabled):
Penilla also teaches the method of charging an electrified vehicle further comprises informing, by the user terminal, a user of the information about the charging of the electrified vehicle, and (Fig 18 shows the app screen that provides user the information about the charging of his vehicle. For example, “Current charge in your vehicle” displays “29%” with a progress bar, “Set amount of charge to add” displays estimated charging times, etc. Therefore, disclosing the App (user terminal) informing users of charging information. Additionally, “the App can allow the user to set an amount of charge to add, which may be based on estimated time t0 fill….the time estimate can be accurately determined to allow selection of the charge amount.” (pg. 9, ¶ 0124));
Penilla does not explicitly disclose accepting an input as to whether to permit the charging of the electrified vehicle;
However, Corbett teaches accepting an input as to whether to permit the charging of the electrified vehicle; and (“The initiation and financial portions of the charge transaction are controlled by the control interface software application within the mobile computing device.” (pg. 2, ¶ 0035), explicitly requires an initiation step activated at the mobile computing device (user terminal) after vehicle identification is exchanged. This is the explicit user permission step before charging commences. Additionally, Claim 5 and Claim 7 of Corbett show this is a required step which requires user input);
Penilla teaches the information about the charging includes at least one of a charging time, a scheduled charging end time, a charging end condition, and charging fee information. (Fig 18 shows the app screen that provides user the information about the charging of his vehicle. For example, “Current charge in your vehicle” displays “29%” with a progress bar, “Set amount of charge to add” displays estimated charging times which directly discloses charging time and charging end condition, etc. And Fig 14 shows the app screen with “Pay for Charge” with payment options and “Discounts Available”, disclosing charging fee information to the user. Therefore, disclosing the App (user terminal) informing users of charging information. This satisfies the conditional limitation of the claim since all requirements are disclosed);
At the time of invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the user authentication, electronic key verification, notification and charging information teachings of Penilla with and user request teachings of Corbett to produce a complete, secure, and user-transparent automated charging transaction.
The motivation for doing so would have been to give the users full visibility and affirmative control over each charging transaction and provide with all charging conditions (time, end condition, and fee) before charging commences. Corbett directly motivates the combination by recognizing that the user must retain control of the charging transaction through the mobile device in an automated charging system, “A companion software application on a computing device, such as a mobile phone, could activate and monitor the charging process, as well as locating charging stations and providing customer billing status.” (pg. 1, ¶ 0007). Therefore, the mobile device (user terminal) controlling the initiation and monitoring of the charging transaction is an established design principle.
Regarding Claim 3, Penilla teaches the method according to claim 1, further comprising sequentially charging, by the charging equipment, a first electrified vehicle and a second electrified vehicle existing within a predetermined range, (“the charge robot 118 can move on a track to charge cars based on charge reservation. If the user reserves charge, the robot 118 will ID the slot and automatically sync/pair to the vehicle, the vehicle charge door will open, and the robot 118 will start to charge.” (pg. 7, ¶ 0101) and Fig 9C shows the robot moving along a charge track, meaning sequential charging of multiple EVs within a predetermined range. This is also stated in Claim 7 of Penilla);
Penilla also teaches wherein the sequentially charging the first and second electrified vehicles includes: performing user authentication through communication between the charging equipment and a user terminal linked to the second electrified vehicle during charging of the first electrified vehicle; (“the charge robot 118 can move on a track to charge cars based on charge reservation. If the user reserves charge, the robot 118 will ID the slot and automatically sync/pair to the vehicle, the vehicle charge door will open, and the robot 118 will start to charge.” (pg. 7, ¶ 0101) and “users, via applications (on mobile devices or on the vehicle) can identify proximate CUs, their status, make reservations for particular CUs, and receive notifications of the progress.” (pg. 4, ¶ 0067), meaning the cloud system manages reservations and user accounts for multiple vehicles simultaneously and the robot moves to the next reserved vehicle upon completing the first. The reservation and account system inherently involves authenticating the second user’s account while first vehicle is being charged. The system must verify the second vehicle’s reservation before the robot moves);
Penilla teaches after the charging of the first electrified vehicle is finished, notifying the user terminal of the second electrified vehicle that charging of the second electrified vehicle is enabled; (“The user will receive notifications of when charge starts, of estimated time till charge complete and when the EV is fully charged or charged to the level ordered by the user.” (pg. 7, ¶ 0101), Fig 9C show “When done, user is notified by application, smart phone or device.” and Fig 15 shows sequential notifications about the charge completion events. This notification system, applied to the second vehicle in a sequential queue, after the charging of the first vehicle is finished, it notifies the user of the second vehicle that the charging of their vehicle is enabled or started);
Penilla does not explicitly disclose requesting permission from the user terminal of the second electrified vehicle for the charging equipment to execute the charging of the second electrified vehicle;
However, Corbett teaches requesting permission from the user terminal of the second electrified vehicle for the charging equipment to execute the charging of the second electrified vehicle; and (“The initiation and financial portions of the charge transaction are controlled by the control interface software application within the mobile computing device.” (pg. 2, ¶ 0035), explicitly requires an initiation step activated at the mobile computing device (user terminal) after vehicle identification is exchanged. This is the explicit user permission step before charging commences. Additionally, Claim 5 and Claim 7 of Corbett show this is a required step which requires user input. Applying to the second vehicle in a sequential charging queue, this step becomes a permission request. After notifying the second user, the system requests the user’s permission via the mobile app before the robot moves to and charges the second vehicle);
Penilla also teaches starting, by the charging equipment, the charging of the second electrified vehicle when the user terminal of the second electrified vehicle permits the charging of the second electrified vehicle. (“the charge robot 118 can move on a track to charge cars based on charge reservation. If the user reserves charge, the robot 118 will ID the slot and automatically sync/pair to the vehicle, the vehicle charge door will open, and the robot 118 will start to charge.” (pg. 7, ¶ 0101) and Fig 9C shows the robot moving along a charge track, meaning sequential charging of multiple EVs within a predetermined range);
At the time of invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the sequential multi-vehicle charging and notification system of Penilla with the explicit user permission initiation step of Corbett and apply the permission step to each vehicle in the sequential charging queue, including the second electrified vehicle.
The motivation for doing so would have been to ensure that the automated robot does not proceed to physically engage a second vehicle without the owner’s affirmative consent, the same safety and billing rationale that applies to the first vehicle. User initiation control via the mobile device is essential to any automated charging transaction as taught by Corbett, “The initiation and financial portions of the charge transaction are controlled by the control interface software application within the mobile computing device. FIG. 6 depicts the process followed by the system.” (pg. 2, ¶ 0035). Applying Corbett’s initiation step to each vehicle in Penilla’s sequential queue is a straightforward and predictable design extension.
Regarding Claim 4, Penilla teaches the method according to claim 3, wherein the starting of the charging of the second electrified vehicle includes: opening a charging lid of the second electrified vehicle to expose a charging port of the second electrified vehicle; (“when the user syncs to the robot 118 using a smartphone or device or EV UI, the user is provided with charge options. The vehicle will then automatically pop open the charging door.” (pg. 7, ¶ 0099) and “The robot 118 identifies the location of plug on the vehicle 110 and positions itself to make connection.” (pg. 7, ¶ 0100) meaning the vehicle’s charging door, which covers and protects the charging port, automatically opens in response to the robot’s approach and the user’s sync action, thereby exposing the charging port of the electrified vehicle to allow the robot arm to insert the charging connector. This directly discloses opening a charging lid of the electrified vehicle to expose its charging port);
Penilla also teaches connecting a charging connector portion of the charging equipment to the charging port of the second electrified vehicle; and supplying power from the charging connector portion of the charging equipment to the charging port of the second electrified vehicle. (“The door, once open, will provide a path for the robot to inject the charging cord. The robot 118 can insert the charge cord/connector to a side 116, a front 112, a top 114, a back 110 or a bottom of the vehicle. The robot can be mounted on the ceiling, on the floor, on a wall, or can move independently on wheels or tracks,” (pg. 7, ¶ 0099) and “The articulating arm is configured for movement that enables the articulating arm to automatically connect to a connector of the vehicle after the robot moves in position beside the vehicle for providing charge to the battery of the vehicle” (Abstract), meaning that once the charging door is open and the robot has positioned itself, the articulating arm automatically inserts the charging connector into the vehicle’s charging port and immediately begins supplying electrical power to the vehicle’s battery. Therefore, connecting the charging connector portion to the charging port of the vehicle and supplying power from the connector).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892.
Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHANDNI PATEL whose telephone number is (571)272-9661. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7am-4pm, every other Friday off.
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, Scott Baderman can be reached at (571)272-3644. 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.
/CHANDNI PATEL/Examiner, Art Unit 2118
/SCOTT T BADERMAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2118
Prosecution Insights