DETAILED ACTION
This Non-Final Office Action is in response to amendments filed 4/24/2026.
Claims 1, 9, and 17 have been amended.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Response to Arguments
In view of the amendment filed 4/24/2026, claims 1-4, 6, 8-12, 14, and 16-20 are allowable. However, because dependent claims 5, 7, 13, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and (b), the application is not currently in a condition for allowance. See the claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112 and allowable subject matter below for further details.
Examiner’s Note
To enhance clarity, claim language is underlined throughout this Office Action.
Citations to the prior art are provided in parentheses following each claim limitation, along with any necessary supplemental explanations.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 5, 7, 13, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 5 recites wherein the identifying of the unsafe condition comprises: identifying the unsafe condition based on an input from a user to an infotainment system of the vehicle, while claim 1, from which claim 5 depends, defines the “identifying” step as identifying, by a vehicle being charged with a charging connector of a charging station, an unsafe condition using a geofence that dynamically adjusts its virtual perimeter based on current environmental conditions. The Applicant’s disclosure does not support further limiting the “identifying” step of claim 1, defined as “using a geofence that dynamically adjusts its virtual perimeter based on current environmental conditions,” to be “based on an input from a user to an infotainment system of the vehicle,” as in claim 5. Specifically, paragraph [0073] of the specification filed 2/1/2024 recites:
“In one embodiment, the system creates a geofenced safe boundary around the charging station/point. The system leverages geofencing technology that uses GPS or Radio-Frequency Identification (RFID) to create a virtual geographic boundary that can trigger a response when the object enters or leaves a particular area. This virtual perimeter is dynamically adjustable based on the prevailing environmental conditions and the historical data of natural events specific to that location. For instance, in a flood-prone area, the geofence might be wider during the rainy season to allow for early response. While charging, the vehicle constantly communicates with satellite GPS systems and a centralized database that monitors environmental threats, such as wildfires, tsunamis, earthquakes, or severe weather conditions. When a potential threat is detected approaching the geofenced area, the system assesses the level of danger based on parameters like the speed of the approaching hazard, its intensity, and the estimated time of impact. If the system determines the threat level is high and imminent, it initiates a series of actions. Firstly, it sends an alert to the vehicle’s infotainment system, notifying the occupants of the impending danger and advising immediate evacuation. Simultaneously, the system prepares the vehicle for a quick departure by disengaging the charging connector. The system can initiate an automatic evacuation protocol for vehicles equipped with autonomous driving capabilities, steering the vehicle to a pre-determined safe location. For non-autonomous vehicles, the system ensures that the vehicle is ready for manual driving as soon as the occupants enter. The system is equipped with fail-safes to prevent false alarms or unnecessary disengagements. It cross-verifies threat data with multiple sources and utilizes sophisticated algorithms to assess the reliability of the incoming data. It also allows for manual override, both at the vehicle and charging station levels, ensuring that human judgment can prevail in complex situations.”
As discussed in the citation from the specification above, the geofence is used to detect when an object enters or leaves a particular area, and user input to an infotainment system does not influence the identification of an unsafe condition using the geofence.
The limitation of claim 5 is described as a separate embodiment for identifying an unsafe condition in paragraph [0066] of the specification. Instead of further limiting the “identifying” step of claim 1, it is recommended to provide the limitation of claim 5 as a distinct and separate step or alternative limitation. See further issues discussed in the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) below.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) for similar reasons.
Claim 7 recites wherein the identifying of the unsafe condition comprises: detecting that a condition of an occupant has exceeded a threshold based on data from a biometric sensor of the vehicle, while claim 1, from which claim 7 depends, defines the “identifying” step as identifying, by a vehicle being charged with a charging connector of a charging station, an unsafe condition using a geofence that dynamically adjusts its virtual perimeter based on current environmental conditions. The Applicant’s disclosure does not support further limiting the “identifying” step of claim 1, defined as “using a geofence that dynamically adjusts its virtual perimeter based on current environmental conditions,” as “detecting that a condition of an occupant has exceeded a threshold based on data from a biometric sensor of the vehicle,” as in claim 7.
As discussed in paragraph [0073] of the specification cited above, the geofence is used to detect when an object enters or leaves a particular area, and a detection that a condition of an occupant has exceeded a threshold based on data from a biometric sensor of the vehicle does not influence the identification of an unsafe condition using the geofence.
The limitation of claim 7 is described as a separate embodiment for identifying an unsafe condition in paragraph [0074] of the specification. Instead of further limiting the “identifying” step of claim 1, it is recommended to provide the limitation of claim 7 as a distinct and separate step or alternative limitation. See further issues discussed in the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) below.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) for similar reasons.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 5, 7, 13, and 15 are 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.
Claim 5 recites wherein the identifying of the unsafe condition comprises: identifying the unsafe condition based on an input from a user to an infotainment system of the vehicle, while claim 1, from which claim 5 depends, defines the “identifying” step as identifying, by a vehicle being charged with a charging connector of a charging station, an unsafe condition using a geofence that dynamically adjusts its virtual perimeter based on current environmental conditions. An automated step (“using a geofence that dynamically adjusts its virtual perimeter based on current environmental conditions”) is claimed as comprising a manual step (“based on an input from a user to an infotainment system of the vehicle”), and thus, the user input is a required component of the geofence calculation used for identifying the unsafe condition. One of ordinary skill in the art would not be capable of understanding how to identify the safe condition, due to this conflict.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for similar reasons.
Claim 7 recites wherein the identifying of the unsafe condition comprises: detecting that a condition of an occupant has exceeded a threshold based on data from a biometric sensor of the vehicle, while claim 1, from which claim 7 depends, defines the “identifying” step as identifying, by a vehicle being charged with a charging connector of a charging station, an unsafe condition using a geofence that dynamically adjusts its virtual perimeter based on current environmental conditions. A spatial determination (“using a geofence that dynamically adjusts its virtual perimeter based on current environmental conditions”) is claimed as comprising a physiological measurement (“based on an input from a user to an infotainment system of the vehicle”), and thus, the biometric-related threshold is a required component of the geofence used for identifying the unsafe condition. One of ordinary skill in the art would not be capable of understanding how to identify the safe condition, due to this conflict.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for similar reasons.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-4, 6, 8-12, 14, and 16-20 are allowed. Claims 5, 7, 13, and 15 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and 35 U.S.C. 112(b), set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The closest prior art of record, Cho et al. (translation of WO 2023/229055 A1), hereinafter Cho, Koskan (US 10,421,437 B1), hereinafter Koskan, and Ferguson et al. (US 2023/0141841 A1), hereinafter Ferguson, taken alone or in combination, does not teach the claimed apparatus, non-transitory computer-readable medium, and method comprising:
identifying, by a vehicle being charged with a charging connector of a charging station, an unsafe condition using a geofence that dynamically adjusts its virtual perimeter based on current environmental conditions; and
responsive to the unsafe condition being identified:
discontinuing one or more of an audio or video content being played in the vehicle,
providing one or more of new audio or video content comprising information concerning the unsafe condition,
disengaging the charging connector from the vehicle, and
engaging a driving functionality of the vehicle, and
notifying the charging station about the unsafe condition so it displays a warning.
Specifically, Cho teaches a similar system that performs identifying, by a vehicle, an unsafe condition (see ¶0323-0332, regarding that changes in behavioral characteristics of a recognized object is detected, so as to set a response policy, e.g., autonomous driving control or stronger warning alarm, based on the degree of proximity to a vehicle (approach, touch), an attempt to break into the vehicle through a door or window, or hitting the vehicle, where the vehicle’s exterior cameras are used to continuously collect image data outside the vehicle, as described in ¶0323, and the object may be a person or an animal, as described in ¶0331), and responsive to the unsafe condition being identified: providing one or more of new audio or video content comprising information concerning the unsafe condition (see ¶0275-0279, regarding that when the object in the vicinity of the vehicle approaches the vehicle within the threshold distance or touches the vehicle, an output unit generates an intervention alarm, which may be provided in a visual form on a display in the vehicle or as a warning alert sound output through an internal speaker of the vehicle, as described in ¶0241), and engaging a driving functionality of the vehicle (see ¶0280, regarding that if an object approaches and touches the vehicle, the vehicle takes progressive action to autonomously drive to a safe area). However, Cho does not teach that the “unsafe condition” is identified using a geofence that dynamically adjusts its virtual perimeter based on current environmental conditions, and Cho does not describe the parked state as a state in which the electric vehicle is being charged with a charging connector of a charging station and thus does not further disclose that “responsive to the unsafe condition being identified,” disengaging the charging connector from the vehicle and notifying the charging station about the unsafe condition so it displays a warning.
Similar to Cho, Koskan teaches identifying an “unsafe condition” in which a person is approaching a parked vehicle (see col. 20, lines 49-59, with respect to Figure 4B, depicting unknown human potential perpetrator 420 crossing the sized vehicular geofence 410 and approaching the vehicle destination location 402, defined as the current stopped location of the vehicle in col. 13, lines 21-25; col. 13, lines 15-20, regarding that process 300 is executed by vehicular computing device 108). Koskan further teaches that this “unsafe condition” is identified using a geofence that dynamically adjusts its virtual perimeter based on current environmental conditions (see col. 16, lines 49-53, with respect to step 306 of Figure 3, regarding the modification of one or more perimeter distances of a sized vehicular geofence surrounding the vehicle as a function of one or more vehicular perimeter contextual parameters, defined as including an incident type associated with the vehicle destination location, a historical crime rate associated with the vehicle destination location, and real-time crime rate associated with the vehicle destination location in col. 14, lines 1-7, where the vehicle destination location is the current stopped location of the vehicle, as described in col. 13, lines 21-25). However, the vehicle of Koskan is not an electric vehicle capable of being charged with a charging connector of a charging station and thus does not perform any operation related to disengaging the charging connector from the vehicle.
Ferguson teaches a vehicle being charged with a charging connector of a charging station, depicted in Figure 1, such that the vehicle operates by disengaging the charging connector from the vehicle and engaging a driving functionality of the vehicle (see claim 3, regarding that the vehicle disconnects from the charging station and autonomously drives to a specified location; ¶0062, with respect to Figures 1 and 2, regarding that EV 110 disconnects from charging station 130, such that power from battery 150 is distributed to the subsystems 230 for driving). However, the charging connector of Ferguson is disengaged in response to being dispatched by a fleet management system (see ¶0061-0062) and does not consider any identified “unsafe conditions,” so as to further notify the charging station about the unsafe condition so it displays a warning.
Additional prior art considered pertinent to the Applicant’s invention include Otero et al. (US 2011/0227756 A1) that teaches the known technique of discontinuing one or more of an audio or video content being displayed in the vehicle prior to providing one or more of new audio or video content (see ¶0077, with respect to Figure 4), Yellambalase et al. (US 2018/0201145 A1) that teaches the known technique of identifying, by a vehicle being charged with a charging connector, an unsafe condition (see ¶0157-0158; ¶0162), and responsive to the unsafe condition being identified: disengaging the charging connector from the vehicle (see ¶0164), and engaging a driving functionality of the vehicle (see ¶0170-0171), and Gilbert-Eyres et al. (US 2025/0058636 A1) that teaches the known technique of identifying, by a vehicle being charged by a charging connector, that an unsafe condition exists (see ¶0083-0084), and responsive to the unsafe condition being identified: providing one or more of new audio or video content comprising information concerning the unsafe condition (see ¶0086-0088), and disengaging the charging connector from the vehicle (see ¶0084), as discussed in detail in the Office Action mailed 3/2/2026.
No reasonable combination of prior art can be made to teach the claimed invention. The claimed invention would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Specifically, Straugheir (US 2015/0116099 A1) teaches driving an electric vehicle away from a threat based on an input to an HMI of the vehicle (see abstract), Linsmeier et al. (US 2024/0058634 A1) teaches ejecting a charging plug and autonomously driving an electric vehicle within a charging session (see ¶0003), Jakobsen et al. (US 2021/0126573 A1) teaches navigating an electric mobile device to a predetermined safe location in response to determining that weather conditions are not ideal for charging (see ¶0055), Ashida et al. (translation of JP 2012-39776 A) teaches generating a warning when a human is detected as approaching an electric vehicle during charging (see ¶0010), Straugheir (GB 2501827 A) teaches automatically releasing a connector during a charging session prior to drive away (see page 4, lines 11-17), and Kent et al. (US 2024/0323643 A1) teaches performing an action corresponding to an executive function of the vehicle in response to determining the location of the vehicle satisfies a geofence (see abstract), where the function includes termination or initiation of a charging session (see ¶0017).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Sara J Lewandroski whose telephone number is (571)270-7766. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9 am-5 pm ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ramya P Burgess can be reached at (571)272-6011. 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.
/SARA J LEWANDROSKI/Examiner, Art Unit 3661
Prosecution Insights