DETAILED ACTION
1. This is the first action on the merits relating to U.S. Application Serial No. 18/434,398 filed on February 6, 2024. Currently claims 1-20 remain in the examination.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
2. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Drawings
3. Drawings originally filed on February 6, 2024 are approved.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
4. 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.
5. Claim 13 is 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.
Regarding claim 13, it is unclear what is being claimed as the subject matter. Claim 13 recites:
“The recommendation system of claim 12, wherein the real-time first charging station information comprises information associated with a count of users or vehicles located at the first recommended charging station and a presence of authorities at the first recommended charging station, and wherein the optimal charging parameter is associated with at least one of a recommended charge time at the first recommended charging station, and a recommended amount of charge to be transferred to the vehicle at the first recommended charging station.”
However, it is unclear what is being claimed.
Appropriate correction/clarification is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. Claims 1-4, 6, 10-12, 14, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2023/0266138 A1 to YANG et al. (hereinafter “YANG”).
Regarding claim 1, YANG discloses a recommendation system (see abstract, figure 12, and paragraph 0043) comprising a station recommendation device 100 (see figure 1) comprising data collection device 110 comprising wireless network interface (see paragraph 0056) and providing station related information in real-time manner (see abstract and paragraphs 0008 and thereafter); a processor 120 (see paragraphs 0051 and 0054); and start step in figure 2 is a triggering step; and; the processor storing an average charging time for each charging station (see paragraph 0132); and recommendation of the station is made on vehicle charging time (see paragraphs 0132, and 0148 and thereafter).
Regarding claim 2, estimated charging time (see paragraph 0150 and thereafter) is one of parameters for the recommendation.
Regarding claim 3, estimated arrival time to a target station (see paragraphs 0012-0017) is another parameter for the recommendation.
Regarding claim 4, the user device 10 (see figure 12) is a computing device (see paragraphs 0244 and thereafter) which comprises user interface output device 1500. It is Examiner’s position that the recommendation or condition shown in figures 6-11 are shown to the user.
Regarding claim 6, as shown in figure 6, the vehicle and charging station are shown with their GPS position information (see paragraph 0150, 0171, and 0172 and figure 6).
Regarding claims 10 and 11, as shown in figure 8, station 820 would be interpreted as a first choice, 830 the next and so forth (see paragraphs 0195 – 0201).
Regarding claims 12 and 14, if the user arrives at charging station 820, and charges users’ vehicle, the status and actual charging operation is shown in figure 8 under station 820. Arriving at the station 820 can be interpreted as a predefined action.
Regarding claim 19 and 20, see the description for claim 1 above. YANG discloses that the processor executes the instruction of software (see paragraphs 0053 and 0246) performing the method as shown in figure 2.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. 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.
12. Claims 5, 8, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2023/0266138 A1 to YANG et al. in view of US 2017/0168493 A1 to MILLER et al. (hereinafter “MILLER”).
The teachings of YANG have been discussed above.
YANG, however, fails to disclose or suggest that the recombination system is part of the vehicle as recited in claim 5.
MILLER discloses vehicle charge rating and recommendation system (see abstract and see figure 1 and paragraph 0052) wherein the vehicle 102 is comprised of a on-board computing unit (box with no label) comprising all the elements listed in figure 1 and paragraph 0052) for the users to assign a rating (sees figure 6 and 7) and set criteria for the acceptable charge station (see paragraph 0057 and thereafter).
In view of MILLER’s disclosure, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to design the computing unit as an on-board unit so that the driver can get to the information in real time. Although YANG emphasizes obtaining real-time station information for the driver (see figures 6-11), YANG does not explicitly state that the user device 1000 is on-board unit (or part of the vehicle). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to ordinary skill in the art to make the user device 1000 as an on-board unit.
Regarding claim 8, as shown in figure 7, the user can assign a rating for a charging station (see paragraph 0058).
Regarding claim 9, one of the criteria for the rating is whether the charging station is near other place of interest (e.g., malls, stores, etc.) (see paragraph 0035).
13. Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2023/0266138 A1 to YANG et al. in view of US 2016/0257209 A1 to Lewis.
The teachings of YANG have been discussed above.
YANG, however, fails to disclose or suggest that the station is configured to change a vehicle wirelessly.
Lewis discloses a vehicle charging system wherein the vehicle is wirelessly charged (see abstract and paragraphs 0005 and thereafter).
In view of Lewis’ disclosure, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to configure the charging station to charge the vehicle in wired manner or wireless manner. Some vehicles are configured to be charged wirelessly and accommodating those vehicle at the same charging station would be an obvious expedient.
Allowable Subject Matter
14. Claims 15-18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
15. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Claims are directed at a recommendation system comprising:
a transceiver configured to receive charging station information, wherein the charging station information comprises information associated with real-time waiting times and presence of fast chargers at a plurality of charging stations located in a geographical area; and
a processor communicatively coupled with the transceiver, wherein the processor is configured to:
obtain a trigger signal;
estimate a vehicle charging time associated with each charging station based on the charging station information, responsive to obtaining the trigger signal;
determine a first recommended charging station, from the plurality of charging stations, based on the vehicle charging time;
output a first recommended charging station information responsive to determining the first recommended charging station;
wherein the processor is further configured to: determine that a vehicle has reached the first recommended charging station, responsive to outputting the first recommended charging station information; and cause the vehicle to perform a predefined action responsive to determining that the vehicle has reached the first recommended charging station; and
wherein the predefined action comprises at least one of: activating a vehicle perimeter light, activating an exterior vehicle camera, outputting an alert notification, or transmitting a light activation request to one or more additional vehicles or infrastructure lights in proximity to the vehicle.
Above is a combination of claims 1-14-15, which is allowable since the cited prior arts neither disclose nor suggest such a recommendation system. The limitations in other objected claims are also allowable.
Conclusion
The pertinent prior arts made of record but not relied are listed in the attached form PTO-892. These are considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure. Applicant is respectfully suggested to carefully review these references.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ahshik Kim whose telephone number is (571)272-2393. The examiner can normally be reached between the hours of 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM Monday thru Friday. Examiner’s fax phone number is (571)273-2393.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Thomas Pham, can be reached on (571)272-3689. The fax phone number for this Group is (571)273-8300.
Communications via Internet e-mail regarding this application, other than those under 35 U.S.C. 132 or which otherwise require a signature, may be used by the applicant and should be addressed to [ahshik.kim@uspto.gov].
PTO employees do not engage in Internet communications where there exists a possibility that sensitive information could be identified or exchanged unless the record includes a properly signed express waiver of the confidentiality requirements of 35 U.S.C. 122. This is more clearly set forth in the Interim Internet Usage Policy published in the Official Gazette of the Patent and Trademark on February 25, 1997 at 1195 OG 89.
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.
/AHSHIK KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2876
August 21, 2026
