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 Claims
This is in reply to communication filed on 11/04/2025.
Claims 1-20 have been amended.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Arguments
Regarding 35 USC § 101 rejection:
Applicant argument submitted under the title “Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101” in pages 9-16.
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On reliance on the MPEP: step 2A: Applicant states the claims “The claimed features go beyond mere methods of organizing human behavior” because they are “a technological process involving specific computing components and technical improvements” for Energy-based billing for EV charging. However, the claims expressly recite commercial/legal interactions (billing process and system; receiving/ initiating/causing charging/sending usage data/ charging or debiting payment instrument), which fall squarely within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” category of the MPEP 21.04(a) grouping.
step 2A, prong 2 and step 2B: The additional limitations are directed to using a generic computer to process information and perform the abstract idea. Therefore, the limitations merely amount to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) to the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f). in addition the utilization of smart adapter recitation does not provide more than linking the judicial exception to a particular technology field of using charging devices that do not provide an integration into a practical application. See MPEP 2016.05 (h).
In sum, Applicant’s arguments do not persuasively show that the claims avoid reciting a judicial exception, integrate the exception into a practical application, or add significantly more.
Regarding Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103:
Applicant argument submitted under the title “Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103” in pages 16-20.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
In response, the Examiner first emphasizes that the newly amended limitations are narrower in scope than the features previously presented in claims (1, 9 and 17). Applicant's arguments with respect to the amended limitations has been considered, however the argument is primarily raised in support of the amendments to independent claims 1, 9 and 17, and therefore is believed to be fully addressed via the new ground of rejection under §103 set forth below, which incorporates a new reference, Kudo et al. (US 20180186246 A1) to teach the new limitations of claims 1, 9 and 17. Accordingly, the amendment and supporting arguments are believed to be fully addressed via the new ground of rejection set forth under §103 below.
Applicant’s remaining arguments either logically depend from the above-rejected arguments, in which case they too are unpersuasive for the reasons set forth above, or they are directed to features which have been newly added via amendment. Therefore, this is now the Examiner's first opportunity to consider these limitations in view of the prior art and as such any arguments regarding these limitations would be inappropriate since they have not yet been examined. A full rejection of these limitations in view of the prior art will be presented later in this Office Action.
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 a judicial exception without significantly more.
Step 1:
Claims 1-8 recite a method, which is directed to a process.
Claims 9-16 recite a method, which is directed to a process.
Claims 17-20 recite an apparatus, which is directed to a machine.
Therefore, each claim falls within one of the four statutory categories.
Step 2A, Prong 1 (Is a judicial exception recited?):
The independent claims 1, 9 and 17 recite the abstract idea. The claims recite commercial/legal interactions and managing personal behavior/relationships around insurance and inventory. The claims teaches billing systems and methods of payment calculation for chargeable units based on charge amount and user information.
Offending clauses include:
“wherein the smart adapter is configured to electrically couple an electric vehicle (EV) to an outlet and cause bi-directional power flow to facilitate charging and discharging a battery of the EV via the outlet, wherein the smart adapter is further configured to establish communication with a billing network via a plurality of communication interfaces”,
“initiating, based on the smart adapter engaging the outlet, a one or more attempts to establish communication with the billing network via the plurality of communication interfaces”
The Examiner additionally finds the claims to be similar to an example the courts have identified as being a certain method of organizing human activity:
i. local processing of payments for remotely purchased goods, Inventor Holdings, LLC v. Bed Bath Beyond, 876 F.3d 1372, 1378-79, 125 USPQ2d 1019, 1023 (Fed. Cir. 2017).
ii. placing an order based on displayed market information, Trading Technologies Int’l, Inc. v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1092, 2019 USPQ2d 138290 (Fed. Cir. 2019).
iii. Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 714-15, 112 USPQ2d 1750, 1753-54 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
Step 2A, Prong 2 (Is the exception integrated into a practical application?):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims satisfy the following criteria, which indicate that the claims do not integrate the abstract idea into practical application:
The claimed additional limitations are:
Claim 1: smart adapter, engaging an outlet, billing network, communication interface(s),
Claim 9: smart adapter, engaging an outlet, billing network, first and second communication interface(s),
Claim 17: an outlet interface, a plurality of communication interfaces comprising a power line carrier interface, a cellular network interface, a WiFi network interface, a smart grid network interface, and a short-range communication interface; and a computing device in communication with the outlet interface and the plurality of communication interfaces,
Claims 1, 9 and 17: “wherein the smart adapter is configured to electrically couple an electric vehicle (EV) to an outlet and cause bi-directional power flow to facilitate charging and discharging a battery of the EV via the outlet, wherein the smart adapter is further configured to establish communication with a billing network via a plurality of communication interfaces”, “initiating, based on the smart adapter engaging the outlet, a one or more attempts to establish communication with the billing network via the plurality of communication interfaces”
The additional limitations are directed to using a generic computer to process information and perform the abstract idea. Therefore, the limitations merely amount to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) to the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f). in addition the utilization of smart adapter recitation does not provide more than linking the judicial exception to a particular technology field of using charging devices that do not provide an integration into a practical application. See MPEP 2016.05 (h).
Step 2B (Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more that the judicial exception?):
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As for Step 2B analysis, knowing the consideration is overlapping with Step 2A, Prong 2. The Step 2B considerations have already been substantially addressed under Step 2A Prong 2, see Step 2A Prong 2 analysis above. As discussed above, the additional imitations amount to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f) and generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(h).
In addition, the dependent claims recite:
Step 2A, Prong 1 (Is a judicial exception recited?):
Dependent claims 2-8, 10-16 and 18-20 recitations further narrowing the abstract idea recited in the independent claims 1, 9 and 17 and therefore directed towards the same abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2 and Step 2B:
The dependent claims 2-8, 10-16 and 18-20 further narrow the abstract idea recited in the independent claims 1, 9 and 17 and are therefore directed towards the same abstract idea.
The dependent claims recite the following additional limitations:
Claims 2 and 18: comprises one or more of a 120 VAC outlet or a 240 VAC outlet,
Claim 3: communication interface comprises a power line carrie
Claims 4, 14 and 20: smart adapter,
Claims 7 and 10: plurality of communication interfaces comprises one or more of a power line carrier interface, a cellular network interface, a WiFi network interface, a smart grid network interface, or a short-range communication interface,
Claims 11 and 19: short- range communication interface comprises one or more of a Bluetooth interface or a near field communication (NFC) interface,
However, the examiner finds each of these additional elements to be directed to merely “apply it” or applying a generic technology to perform the recited abstract idea of payment process (i.e., commercial interaction), the recitation to the generic computer technology that is being used as a tool to execute the steps that define the abstract idea do not provide for integration at the 2nd prong and do not provide for significantly more at step 2B.
Therefore, the limitations on the invention of claims 1-20, when viewed individually and in ordered combination are directed to in-eligible subject matter.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Goei (US 20210197682 A1, hereinafter “Goei”) in view of Kudo et al. (US 20180186246 A1, hereinafter “Kudo”).
Regarding claims 1, 9 and 17. Goei discloses a method comprising:
receiving, by smart adapter,data indicative of a user account associated with thesmart adapter, (Goei, [0064]; “The account controller 1210 stores user account information enabling a user to login to the device charger controller 1012 in order to obtain charging services”, [0078]; “The user connects their device to the charging unit at step 1514. As soon as the device is plugged into the charging unit 1014, an authentication sequence will be initiated at step 1516 … The user authorizes commencement of the charging at step 1518 and this confirmation is received by the charging unit 1014 at step 1520”)
wherein the smart adapter is configured to electrically couple an electric vehicle (EV) to an outlet and (Goei, [0042]; “Charging circuitry 504 utilizes power from either the local power grid or a local battery source to generate a charging current that is output via the charge connector 502 to the electric vehicle being charged”) to facilitate charging a battery of the EV via the outlet, (Goei, [0041]; “FIG. 5 illustrates a functional block diagram of the charging unit 206 … The charging unit 206 will include a charge connector 502 for connecting one or more different types of electric vehicle to charging circuitry 504 . The charging circuitry 504 generates the charging voltage provided to the vehicle”)
wherein the smart adapter is further configured to establish communication with a billing network via a plurality of communication interfaces; (Goei, [0043]; “A network interface 512 provides for a wireless or wired connection to the charging control server 204 to enable communications and operations occurring between the databases and controllers therein and the control functionalities within the charging unit 206. A payment unit 514 comprises an interface for manually entering user information or a credit card reader enabling the taking of point of sale payment information from a driver that desires to charge their electric vehicle”)
initiating, based on thesmart adapter engaging [[an]]the outlet,-aone or more attempts to establish communication with the billing network via the plurality of communication interfaces; (Goei, [0079]; “The charging process is initiated and payment made at step 1522 … Once the session is terminated, the system will complete the payment protocols at step 1528 … The system provides a variety of financial payment operations as commonly practiced in e-commerce such as scheduled billing and payment”
causing, based on establishing communication with the billing network via a communication interface of the plurality of communication interfaces, the battery to charge via the outlet; (Goei, [0036]; “Upon arrival at the designated charging unit 206, the vehicle is connected at step 310 with the designated charger … the amount of electricity consumed during the charge process and the location of the charging unit 206 … Determination of electricity consumption can be facilitated by several means and mechanisms including in-line and inductive metering within the charging circuit to the electric vehicle or from data generated by the electric vehicle which may be accessible via Bluetooth or other wireless transmissions”)
data indicative of the user account andan amount of energy associated with charging or discharging the battery, usage information associated with charging [[a]] the battery via the outlet; and (Goei, [0036]; “smart metering capability installed by utilities to monitor on premise electricity usage the electricity consumed via users using our system such information may be transmitted to our system for usage accounting and billing”)
sending the usage information to the billing network via the communication interface, wherein the user account is charged or debited according to the usage information. (Goei, [0044]; “Each of the system components are under control of an electricity control and management unit 516 … management unit 516 enables the dispensation of electricity, detects the amount of electricity consumed and transmits this information through the network 210 using mechanisms such as powerline communications, and Wi-Fi, 3G, 4G or other prevalent data networks to the central controller 204 for storage within the various databases”)
Goei substantially discloses the claimed invention; however, Goei fails to explicitly disclose the “cause bi-directional power flow and discharging, or discharge” via the outlet, “or discharging” the battery via the outlet. However, Kudo teaches:
cause bi-directional power flow and discharging, or discharge via the outlet, or discharging the battery via the outlet (Kudo, [0011]; “a charging/discharging device … a power conversion unit (e.g., a bidirectional charger 103 in the embodiment described below) that converts power transferred between the electricity storage unit and the power system”, [0052]; “V2G (Vehicle-to-Grid) is a system that performs power interchange between a power system) … bidirectional power exchange is performed between the electric vehicle participating in the V2G and the power system”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Goei to include cause bi-directional power flow and discharging, or discharge via the outlet, or discharging the battery via the outlet, as taught by Kudo, where this would be performed in order to provide the capability of contributing to the stabilization of a power system. See Kudo [0008].
Regarding claims 2 and 18. The combination of Goei in view of Kudo discloses the method of claim 1, wherein thoutlet comprises one or more of a 120 VAC outlet or a 240 VAC outlet. (Goei, [0081]; “Different devices may have different battery charging protocols, different connectors and characteristics and may either have an onboard charger which can be directly connected to the 120 V AC outlet or require an offboard (not part of the device) charger that provides the appropriate DC charge voltage and amperage and connectors”)
Regarding claims 3. The combination of Goei in view of Kudo discloses the method of claim 1, wherein thcommunication interface comprisesinterface. (Goei, [0095]; “The PSCU 2014 does not switch the power lines to the EV itself due to the high voltages and current that is typical and which would require bulky relays. While this embodiment describes inductance charging and use of a rechargeable battery 2012 to power the adapter electronics, other means of powering the adapter electronics may be used”)
Regarding claims 4, 14 and 20. The combination of Goei in view of Kudo discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the usage information comprises information indicative of one or more of an amount of energy used to charge the battery and the user account associated with thesmart adapter, or from the battery and the user account associated with thesmart adapter. (Goei, [0036]; “Upon arrival at the designated charging unit 206, the vehicle is connected at step 310 with the designated charger that has been predetermined to be compatible with the particular electric vehicle brand that needs charging. Based on published utility rates, the amount of electricity consumed during the charge process and the location of the charging unit 206”)
Goei substantially discloses the claimed invention; however, Goei fails to explicitly disclose the “an amount of energy discharged”. However, Kudo teaches:
an amount of energy discharged (Kudo, [0013]; “in which the server device performs a time-series analysis on an amount of power supplied from a power supplier to the power system and an amount of power supplied from the power system to a power consumer”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Goei to include an amount of energy discharged, as taught by Kudo, where this would be performed in order to provide the capability of contributing to the stabilization of a power system. See Kudo [0008].
Regarding claims 5 and 12. The combination of Goei in view of Kudo discloses the method of claim 1, wherein
the usage information comprises one or more of an ignition status (Goei, [0063]; “The battery management controller 1208 may also provide automatic cutoff of the charging process when anomalies are encountered to prevent hazardous events”), location information (Goei, [0062]; The location controller 1204 enables the mobile application 1016 to determine a current position of the mobile device housing the mobile application”),
temporal charging or discharging information, a time of use rate (Goei, [0035]; “The time availability may be based upon a requested time or a projected time based upon the travel plan”), charging or discharging energy source information (Goei, [0066]; “The charging circuitry 1303 generates the charging current from a provided energy source”), a current state of charge (Goei, [0064]; “the current status for a charging unit reservation and utilization may be obtained by the vendor”), a utility location, a battery type, a charger type, or a charger timer usage. (Goei, [0035-0036]; “The charging control server 204 matches the vehicle to one or more appropriate vehicle chargers 206 at step 304 responsive to the position of the vehicle and the type of charger required to charge the vehicle … the amount of electricity consumed during the charge process and the location of the charging unit 206”)
Regarding claims 6 and 13. The combination of Goei in view of Kudo discloses the method of claim 1, wherein
the usage information comprises information associated with one or more components of the EV. (Goei, [0064]; “The account controller 1210 provides real-time account access by vendors and users as to their individual accounts to obtain charger usage and financial information and management”)
Regarding claims 7 and 10. The combination of Goei in view of Kudo discloses the method of claim [[6]]1, wherein theplurality of communication interfaces comprises one or more of a power line carrier interface, a cellular network interface, a WiFi network interface, a smart grid network interface, or a short-range communication interface. (Goei, [0043]; “A network interface 512 provides for a wireless or wired connection to the charging control server 204 to enable communications and operations occurring between the databases and controllers therein and the control functionalities within the charging unit 206”)
Regarding claims 8 and 16. The combination of Goei in view of Kudo discloses the method of claim 1,
wherein an account associated with an owner of the outleis debited or charged according to the usage information.(Goei, [0064]; “Users may obtain reservation status and carry out actions such as charging to a credit card and/or debiting a bank account with a predetermined booking fee in order to credit the amount to the system and reserve a predetermined portion of the transaction fee for the serving vendor. Payment controller 1212 stores payment information for the user enabling them to utilize the mobile application 1016 to automatically pay for and obtain charging services using for example credit card information, PayPal information, automatic bank draft information or other payment protocols such as Apple Pay, etc.”)
Regarding claims 11 and 19. The combination of Goei in view of Kudo discloses the method of claim [[9]]10, wherein theshort- range communication interface comprises one or more of a Bluetoothinterface (Goei, [0036]; “Determination of electricity consumption can be facilitated by several means and mechanisms including in-line and inductive metering within the charging circuit to the electric vehicle or from data generated by the electric vehicle which may be accessible via Bluetooth or other wireless transmissions. With the advent of smart metering capability installed by utilities to monitor on premise electricity usage the electricity consumed via users using our system such information may be transmitted to our system for usage accounting and billing”) or a near field communication (NFC)interface (Goei, [0087]; “The EV charging system intelligent adapter 1702 encompasses various technologies such as … near-field and transponder communications”).
Regarding claim 15. The combination of Goei in view of Kudo discloses the method of claim 9, further comprising (Goei, [0037]; “The database 402 may also store information related to the registered electric vehicle such as the last time the electric vehicle was charged, the state of charge to enable the system to estimate the battery exhaustion time and recommended charging locations that an electric vehicle could reach before running out of power”)
Conclusion
1. 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
2. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AVIA SALMAN whose telephone number is (313)446-4901. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday; 9:00 AM to 5:00 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, FAHD OBEID can be reached at (571) 270-3324. 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.
/AVIA SALMAN/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3627