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 .
Claim Objections
Claim is objected to because of the following informalities: grammatical error.
Claim 1, line 2 , the comma after “electronic” should be deleted and place after device.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1, 8, 15 and claims 2-7, and 9-14 ( due to the indefiniteness of claim 1 , 8 ) 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.
The subject matter of claim 1, “human data including pre-departure behavioral and environmental indicators of a person” is broad and ambiguous . The term person can have a variety of possible meanings. It is not clear what “person” the claim is referring to. Is the person the user of the vehicle or a person/bystander proximate the vehicle. As such, one of ordinary skill would not have been able to ascertain the metes and bounds of the claim. Therefore, the broadest reasonable interpretation is in view.
The subject matter of claim 4, database scanning technique for each individual and date through a knee point, renders the claim indefinite . The term “individual” can have a variety of possible meanings. It is not clear whether the “individual” is referring to the user. As such, one of ordinary skill would not have been able to ascertain the metes and bounds of the claim. Therefore, the broadest reasonable interpretation is in view.
The subject matter of claim 8, human data including pre-departure behavioral and environmental indicators of a person, renders the claim indefinite. The term person can have a variety of possible meanings. It is not clear what “person” the claim is referring to. Is the person the user of the vehicle or a person/bystander proximate the vehicle. As such, one of ordinary skill would not have been able to ascertain the metes and bounds of the claim. Therefore, the broadest reasonable interpretation is in view.
The subject matter of claim 11, determine parameters necessary for the database scanning technique for each individual and date through a knee point, renders the claim indefinite. The term “individual” can have a variety of possible meanings. It is not clear whether the “individual” is referring to the user. As such, one of ordinary skill would not have been able to ascertain the metes and bounds of the claim. Therefore, the broadest reasonable interpretation is in view.
The subject matter of claim 15, human data including pre-departure behavioral and environmental indicators of a person, renders the claim indefinite. The term person can have a variety of possible meanings. It is not clear what “person” the claim is referring to. Is the person the user of the vehicle or a person/bystander proximate the vehicle. As such, one of ordinary skill would not have been able to ascertain the metes and bounds of the claim. Therefore, the broadest reasonable interpretation is in view.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 6-9, and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1/a2 as being anticipated by Telpaz US Publication No. 2022/0305941 cited by Applicant.
Re Claim 1, Telpaz discloses an electric vehicle charging method comprising: obtaining from an external electronic, device (P32, P33 user interface is presented to the user via an infotainment system 112)
human data including pre-departure behavioral and environmental indicators of a person (P42, P40) ; extracting information on a departure time from the human data (P47); and predicting a charging end time of a battery of the electric vehicle based on the human data (P56) .
Re Claim 2, Telpaz discloses the electric vehicle charging method of claim 1, further comprising: labeling a latitude and longitude based on position information collected from the external electronic device; and predicting the departure time by generating an algorithm for obtaining the departure time from a house of the person based on the labeled latitude and longitude (P47).
Re Claim 6, Telpaz discloses the electric vehicle charging method of claim 1, further comprising learning the human data for each date by using a gradient boosting decision trees (GBDT) model (P47).
Re Claim 7, Telpaz discloses the electric vehicle charging method of claim 6, further comprising summarizing learning results for each GBDT model for all days, weekdays, and weekends (P47, P48).
Re Claim 8, Telpaz discloses an electric vehicle comprising: a drive module; a battery; and a processor, wherein the processor is configured to obtain, from an external electronic device, human data including pre-departure behavioral and environmental indicators of a person, extract information on a departure time from the human data, and predict a charging end time of the battery of the electric vehicle based on the human data (P32, P33 , P42, P40, P47, P56).
Re Claim 9, Telpaz discloses the electric vehicle of claim 8, wherein the processor is further configured to label a latitude and longitude based on position information collected from the external electronic device and predict the departure time by generating an algorithm for obtaining the departure time from a house of the person based on the labeled latitude and longitude(P47).
Re Claim 13, Telpaz discloses the electric vehicle of claim 8, wherein the processor is further configured to learn the human data for each date by using a gradient boosting decision trees (GBDT) model(P47, P48).
Re Claim 14, Telpaz discloses the electric vehicle of claim 13, wherein the processor is further configured to summarize learning results for each GBDT model for all days, weekdays, and weekends(P47, P48).
Re Claim 15, Telpaz discloses a recording medium comprising: instructions executable by a computer, wherein the instructions include: obtaining, from an external electronic device, human data including pre-departure behavioral and environmental indicators of a person, extracting information on a departure time from the human data, and predicting a charging end time of a battery of an electric vehicle based on the human data (P32, P33 , P42, P40, P47, P56).
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.
Claim(s) 3, 4, 10, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Telpaz US Publication No. 2022/0305941 cited by Applicant in view of LINGYU ZHANG, et al., "Users" Departure Time Prediction Based on Light Gradient Boosting DecisionTree", WASA 2022, LNCS, Vol. 13472, 2022, XP047639932 ,cited by Applicant.
Re Claim 3, Telpaz discloses the electric vehicle charging method of claim 1 but fails to disclose wherein the obtaining of the human data includes obtaining the human data while removing errors based on time sequence, redundancy, and outlier criteria.
ZHANG LINGYU cited by applicant teaches wherein the obtaining of the human data includes obtaining the human data while removing errors based on time sequence, redundancy, and outlier criteria (Page 601, point 5, “The Experimental Results and Analysis”: :Due to ..uncertainty…, we delete orders whose starting point appeared less than five times in a month…we set a threshold to filter the prediction results. The result will be output if its probability surpasses the threshold’.).
Given the teachings of ZHANG LINGYU it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Telpaz with wherein the obtaining of the human data includes obtaining the human data while removing errors based on time sequence, redundancy, and outlier criteria since it is considered a normal routine design option , a customary practice.
Re Claim 4, Telpaz discloses the electric vehicle charging method of claim 1 but fails to disclose detecting an abnormal value in a departure time prediction probability distribution in real time by using a database scanning technique; and determining parameters necessary for the database scanning technique for each individual and date through a knee point.
ZHANG LINGYU cited by applicant teaches detecting an abnormal value in a departure time prediction probability distribution in real time by using a database scanning technique; and determining parameters necessary for the database scanning technique for each individual and date through a knee point (Page 601, point 5, “The Experimental Results and Analysis”: :Due to ..uncertainty…, we delete orders whose starting point appeared less than five times in a month…we set a threshold to filter the prediction results. The result will be output if its probability surpasses the threshold’.).
Given the teachings of ZHANG LINGYU it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Telpaz with detecting an abnormal value in a departure time prediction probability distribution in real time by using a database scanning technique; and determining parameters necessary for the database scanning technique for each individual and date through a knee point since it is considered a normal routine design option , a customary practice.
Re Claim 10, Telpaz discloses the electric vehicle of claim 8, but fails to disclose wherein the processor is further configured to obtain the human data while removing errors based on time sequence, redundancy, and outlier criteria.
ZHANG LINGYU cited by applicant teaches to obtain the human data while removing errors based on time sequence, redundancy, and outlier criteria(Page 601, point 5, “The Experimental Results and Analysis”: :Due to ..uncertainty…, we delete orders whose starting point appeared less than five times in a month…we set a threshold to filter the prediction results. The result will be output if its probability surpasses the threshold’).
Given the teachings of ZHANG LINGYU it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Telpaz with obtain the human data while removing errors based on time sequence, redundancy, and outlier criteria since it is considered a normal routine design option , a customary practice.
Re Claim 11, Telpaz discloses the electric vehicle of claim 8, but fails to disclose wherein the processor is further configured to detect an abnormal value in a departure time prediction probability distribution in real time by using a database scanning technique and determine parameters necessary for the database scanning technique for each individual and date through a knee point.
ZHANG LINGYU cited by applicant teaches wherein the processor is further configured to detect an abnormal value in a departure time prediction probability distribution in real time by using a database scanning technique and determine parameters necessary for the database scanning technique for each individual and date through a knee point.
(Page 601, point 5, “The Experimental Results and Analysis”: :Due to ..uncertainty…, we delete orders whose starting point appeared less than five times in a month…we set a threshold to filter the prediction results. The result will be output if its probability surpasses the threshold’).
Given the teachings of ZHANG LINGYU it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Telpaz with wherein the processor is further configured to detect an abnormal value in a departure time prediction probability distribution in real time by using a database scanning technique and determine parameters necessary for the database scanning technique for each individual and date through a knee point since it is considered a normal routine design option , a customary practice.
Conclusion
The following reference is cited but not relied upon:
Samojeden et al. discloses generating, using the electronic processor and based on the rate profile, a charging profile, and charging, using a charging controller of a charger coupled to the electronic processor, based on the charging profile.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SONJI N JOHNSON whose telephone number is (571)270-5266. The examiner can normally be reached 9am-9pm.
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, Steven Paik can be reached at 5712722404. 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.
SONJI N. JOHNSON
Examiner
Art Unit 2876
/SONJI N JOHNSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2876
Prosecution Insights