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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 11-13, filed 08/05/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-8, 10-15, and 17-20 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive in light of the amendments to the claims. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Brem et al. (US 20240401965).
Applicant's arguments filed 08/05/2025 with respect to the rejection under 35 USC 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant makes the following arguments:
The human mind cannot mentally perform storing battery capacity data of a vehicle or determining a service station having a shelter installation suitable for predicted weather during a battery charging cycle.
The claim is directed to a practical application by reciting a vehicle comprising a rechargeable battery.
The vehicle processor, service route database, weather application, and user device to display a notification add meaningful limitations to the abstract idea.
The vehicle is improved by determining a shelter installation suitable specifically during the charging cycle of the battery.
Regarding argument A: A person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the human mind is capable of obtaining battery capacity data and memorizing it, and further capable of remembering a length of a charging cycle from prior experience.
Regarding argument B: While the claim has been amended to recite a vehicle rather than a system and a rechargeable battery, these elements are merely a generic vehicle and a generic rechargeable battery. Therefore, they amount to no more than merely generally linking the abstract idea to the field of use of electric vehicles.
Regarding argument C: As previously discussed, the vehicle processor and weather application are all recited at so high a level of generality as to be generic computer components used in implementing the abstract idea. On the other hand, the service route database merely stores information to be used by the vehicle; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this function is inclusive of the insignificant pre-solution activity of gathering data. Furthermore, the notification performed by the user device is recited at so high a level of generality that its broadest reasonable interpretation is inclusive of the insignificant post-solution activity of sending a signal.
Regarding argument D: While the claimed invention may represent an improvement to determining a service station, the determination of a service station is still a mental process. An improved mental process remains a mental process, and thus an abstract idea. As previously discussed, the additional elements fail to integrate said abstract idea into a practical application.
Additionally, upon further consideration, applicant’s amendments to the claims require a new ground of rejection under 35 USC 112(a)
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 1- 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.
Regarding claims 1, 8, and 15: The claims recite a vehicle comprising a vehicle processor and a server processor. The specification does not provide any support for a vehicle containing a server processor. For example, Fig. 2 teaches a vehicle which is in communication with a server; however, the server itself is not part of the vehicle.
Regarding claims 2-7, 10-14, and 17-20: The claims are dependent on claims 1, 8, and 15, and thus are rejected for the same reasons.
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 an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite three systems. (Step 1: Yes.) System claim 1, which substantially includes all the limitations of both system claims 8 and 15, has been selected for further analysis.
The claim recites the following limitations (bolded text corresponds to the abstract idea):
A vehicle, comprising:
a rechargeable battery;
a vehicle processor storing battery capacity data of the battery of the vehicle and including a navigation application configured to provide a location and a route of the vehicle;
a server including a server processor communicatively coupled with the vehicle processor and storing a service route database and installation attributes of one or more service stations stored in the service route database, the installation attributes including shelter installations associated with the one or more service stations, and the server processor also including a weather application configured to predict service station weather based on predicted weather data and the service route database; and
wherein a user device including a display and data processing hardware is in communication with the display and executes a monitoring application in communication with the server processor, the server configured to;
receive the route of the vehicle;
based on the predicted weather data, the installation attributes of the one or more service stations and the battery capacity data of the battery of the vehicle, determine a service station along the route having a shelter installation suitable for predicted service station weather at the service station during a charging cycle of the battery of the vehicle; and
provide a notification on the display of the user device corresponding to the determined service station having the suitable shelter installation.
Under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this system predicts weather conditions based on a forecast and determines a gas station to navigate to based on said predicted weather conditions in addition to vehicle information and information from a route database. This action can be performed by the human mind, and thus fall within the mental processes grouping of abstract ideas. (Step 2A-Prong 1: Yes. The claim is abstract.)
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application; limitations that are not indicative of integration include: (1) 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 using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05.f), (2) Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05.g), (3) Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05.h). The claim recites a “vehicle processor”, a battery, a “navigation application”, “server including a server processor”, a “service route database”, a “weather application” and “a user device including a display and data processing hardware”. These are all recited at so high a level of generality as to be no more than generic computer components, which thus merely amounts to instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer. The recitation of “provide a location and a route of the vehicle” is recited at so high a level of generality as to amount to no more than the insignificant pre-solution activity of data collection. In addition, the recitation of “provide a notification on the display of the user device corresponding to one or more of the installation attributes of one or more of the service stations” is recited at a level of generality which amounts to no more than the insignificant post-solution activity of signal transmission, and is furthermore unconnected to the abstract idea of predicting service station weather. (Step 2A-Prong 2: No. The additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application.)
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as discussed above, the recited elements amount to no more than generic computer components or insignificant pre-solution activity. These elements and actions are all well-understood, routine, and conventional in the art, and therefore fail to provide significantly more. (Step 2B: No. The claims do not provide significantly more.) Therefore, claim 1 (and the similarly abstract claims 8 and 15) is not patent eligible.
Claim 2 further defines the monitoring system as either a generic mobile device or generic “infotainment system”. This fails to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, claim 2 is not patent eligible.
Claim 3 recites a new step of recommending a service stop based on the gathered data. This is an action which can be performed in the human mind, and is therefore abstract. The claim does not provide any additional elements; therefore, claim 3 is not patent eligible.
Claims 4 and 5 recite a new step of sending a notification including a preparation protocol (claim 4), which “includes at least one of a charging recommendation, accessory recommendations, and preparation recommendations” (claim 5). These are all recited at so high a level of generality as to amount to no more than the insignificant post-solution activity of data transmission. Therefore, claims 4 and 5 are not patent eligible.
Claim 6 recites a step of receiving an installation update; this is recited at so high a level of generality as to amount to no more than the insignificant pre-solution activity of data gathering. Therefore, claim 6 is not patent eligible.
Claim 7 recites a step of displaying an alternate route; however, this is recited at so high a level of generality as to amount to no more than insignificant post-solution activity. Therefore, claim 7 is not patent eligible.
Claim 10 elaborates on the installation attributes by reciting that they include a “shelter installation proximate to a charging station”. However, this merely elaborates on the information provided during the abstract process of providing a notification corresponding to the installation attributes. Therefore, claim 10 is not patent eligible.
Claims 11 and 12 recite the provision and receipt of a route notification including a reroute selection. These are recited at so high a level of generality as to amount to no more than the insignificant extra-solution activity of signal transmission and receipt.
Claim 13 recites the display of predicted weather; however, this is recited at so high a level of generality as to amount to no more than insignificant post-solution activity. Therefore, claim 13 is not patent eligible.
Claim 14 recites receiving and displaying battery capacity data. These amount to no more than the insignificant pre-solution activity of data gathering and the insignificant post-solution activity of generically displaying information. Therefore, claim 14 is not patent eligible.
Claim 17 recites that the database includes an availability status. However, this is recited at a high level of generality and fails to provide significantly more for the service route database. Therefore, claim 17 is not patent eligible.
Claim 18 recites determining whether there is sufficient battery capacity to reroute the vehicle based on received data. This process can be performed in the human mind and no additional elements are recited that could integrate the abstract idea into a practical application; therefore, claim 18 is not patent eligible.
Claim 19 recites execution of the vehicle route; however, this is recited at so high a level of generality that the broadest reasonable interpretation would be inclusive of the insignificant post-solution activity of sending a control signal. Therefore, claim 19 is not patent eligible.
Claim 20 recites issuing a route notification corresponding to an updated route. However, this is recited at so high a level of generality as to amount to no more than the insignificant post-solution activity of signal transmission. Therefore, claim 20 is not patent eligible.
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 8-10, and 13-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Quint et al. (US 20230015682) in view of Li et al. (CN 112781604) in view of Brem et al.
Claim 1.
With respect to Fig. 1 below, Quint et al. teaches:
PNG
media_image1.png
546
897
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1: A navigation interface according to Quint et al. (originally Quint Fig. 10)
a rechargeable battery
(Quint – [0031] “Battery system 108 may be configured to manage charging of battery 110.”
a vehicle processor storing battery capacity data of the battery of the vehicle and including a navigation application configured to provide a location and a route of the vehicle
(Quint – [0005]) “the processing circuitry may be configured to select the suggested charging station by estimating a location of the electric vehicle along a route to the destination at a start time of the identified scheduling event”
(Quint – [0006]) “the processing circuitry may be configured to select the suggested charging station based on one or more of a charge state of the electric vehicle”
a server including a server processor communicatively coupled with the vehicle processor and storing a service route database and
(Quint – [0037]) “communications circuitry and/or user device 138 may be in communication with one or more servers 140 (e.g., over a communications network such as, for example, the Internet), which may be configured to provide information related to electric charging stations and/or mapping or GPS information to electric vehicle 101 and/or user device 138”
the server processor also including a weather application configured to predict service station weather based on predicted weather data and the service route database
(Quint – [0008]) “the processing circuitry may be configured to access a weather forecast and identify inclement weather at a location of the suggested charging station based on the weather forecast.”
a user device including a display and data processing hardware is in communication with the display and executes a monitoring application in communication with the server processor
(Quint – [0059]) “[Fig. 1 above] shows an exemplary navigation interface 1000 for suggesting an alternative charging station along the suggested route for navigating to destination 406”
the server configured to receive the route of the vehicle and provide a notification on the display of the user device corresponding to the determined service station
(Quint – [0040]) “navigation interface 200 may display user-selectable icons 206 for one or more categories (e.g., food, restrooms, parking, charging) … navigation interface 200 may generate a route to the selected destination.”
Quint et al. does not explicitly teach displaying installation attributes; however, Li et al. teaches:
installation attributes of one or more service stations stored in the service route database, the installation attributes including shelter installations associated with the one or more service stations
(Li – [n0006]) “providing the at least one tag to the user includes: displaying the at least one tag together with the point of interest”
(Li – [n0046]) “the tag may also indicate a service environment associated with the point of interest. For example, taking ‘charging station’ as an example, the label can indicate whether it is an underground charging station or a ground charging station, whether it has a roof, or whether it is facing the street, etc.”
It would have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine these teachings, modifying the navigation system of Quint et al. with the context tagging of Li et al. One would have been motivated to do this because it allows a user to “more quickly obtain the points of interest that meet their needs” (Li – [n0003]).
Neither Quint et al. nor Li et al. explicitly teach determining a service station having a shelter installation; however, Brem et al. teaches:
based on the predicted weather data, the installation attributes of the one or more service stations and the battery capacity data of the battery of the vehicle, determine a service station along the route having a shelter installation suitable for predicted service station weather at the service station during a charging cycle of the battery of the vehicle
(Brem – Abstract) “an indication to perform a charging stop at a suitable charging station depending on a recorded variable in the form of at least one vehicle requirement, user requirement and/or environmental factor.”
(Brem – [0017]) “it may be practical for the person driving the vehicle to drive to a charging station with weather protection so as not to get wet during the charging process.”
(Brem – [0023]) “the journey with the vehicle is planned so that the vehicle arrives at the destination with a comparatively low charge level of the traction battery”
the determined service station having the suitable shelter installation
(Brem – Abstract) “an indication to perform a charging stop at a suitable charging station depending on a recorded variable in the form of at least one vehicle requirement, user requirement and/or environmental factor.”
(Brem – [0017]) “it may be practical for the person driving the vehicle to drive to a charging station with weather protection so as not to get wet during the charging process.”
It would have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine these teachings, modifying the navigation system of Quint et al. to determine a suitable charging stop based on a user requirement such as weather protection, as in the navigation system of Brem et al. Both Quint et al. and Brem et al. are concerned with determining a suitable charging station in adverse weather; therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the two teachings could be combined with predictable results (e.g., a navigation system which determines a charging station which is either outside of adverse weather conditions or offers protection from the adverse weather conditions). One would have been motivated to do this because, in the event of a large storm system, it may not be practical to attempt to find a charging station which is not located within the area affected by the storm.
Claim 2.
The combination of Quint et al., Li et al., and Brem et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Quint et al. further teaches:
wherein the user device includes at least one of a mobile device and an infotainment device of the vehicle
(Quint – [0052]) “charging station interface 600 may be generated for display, by way of processing circuitry 102 and output circuitry 120, at an in-vehicle infotainment screen of display 130 (e.g., a heads-up display and/or at one or more dashboard displays depicting graphical user interfaces) and/or at a display of user device 138 of driver 212”
Claim 3.
The combination of Quint et al., Li et al., and Brem et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Quint et al. further teaches:
wherein the monitoring application is configured to recommend a service stop based on the predicted weather data received from the server processor, the installation attributes, and the battery capacity data received from the vehicle processor
(Quint – [0058]) “If inclement weather is detected at the suggested charging station, processing circuitry 102 may search for an alternative charging station that is not experiencing inclement weather.”
Claim 4.
The combination of Quint et al., Li et al., and Brem et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Quint et al. further teaches:
wherein the server processor is configured to send a notification to the monitoring application in response to the predicted weather data, the notification including a preparation protocol
(Quint – Claim 5) “wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to: access a weather forecast; identify inclement weather at a location of the suggested charging station based on the weather forecast; in response to identifying the inclement weather at the location of the suggested charging station, select an alternative suggested charging station based on the weather forecast; and generate for presentation, at the display, the alternative suggested charging station.”
Claim 5.
The combination of Quint et al., Li et al., and Brem et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 4, as discussed above. Quint et al. further teaches:
wherein the preparation protocol includes at least one of a charging recommendation, accessory recommendations, and preparation recommendations
(Quint – Claim 5) “wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to: access a weather forecast; identify inclement weather at a location of the suggested charging station based on the weather forecast; in response to identifying the inclement weather at the location of the suggested charging station, select an alternative suggested charging station based on the weather forecast; and generate for presentation, at the display, the alternative suggested charging station.”
Claim 8.
The combination of Quint et al., Li et al., and Brem et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 8 except for determining a service station having a shelter installation. However, Brem et al. teaches:
based on predicted service station weather at the service station from a weather application in communication with the server processor, the installation attributes of the one or more service stations and the battery capacity data of the battery of the vehicle, determine a service station along the route having a shelter installation suitable for predicted service station weather at the service station during a charging cycle of the battery of the vehicle
(Brem – Abstract) “an indication to perform a charging stop at a suitable charging station depending on a recorded variable in the form of at least one vehicle requirement, user requirement and/or environmental factor.”
(Brem – [0017]) “it may be practical for the person driving the vehicle to drive to a charging station with weather protection so as not to get wet during the charging process.”
(Brem – [0023]) “the journey with the vehicle is planned so that the vehicle arrives at the destination with a comparatively low charge level of the traction battery”
It would have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine these teachings for the reasons given in discussion of claim 1.
Claim 9.
Rejected by the same rationale as claim 1.
Claim 10.
The combination of Quint et al., Li et al., and Brem et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 9, as discussed above. Li et al. further teaches:
wherein shelter installation is proximate to a charging station of the one or more service stations
(Li – [n0046]) “the tag may also indicate a service environment associated with the point of interest. For example, taking ‘charging station’ as an example, the label can indicate whether it is an underground charging station or a ground charging station, whether it has a roof, or whether it is facing the street, etc.”
It would have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine these teachings for the reasons given in discussion of claim 1.
Claim 13.
The combination of Quint et al., Li et al., and Brem et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 8, as discussed above. With respect to Fig. 1 above, Quint et al. further teaches:
wherein the monitoring application is configured to display predicted weather corresponding to a location of a service station along the route of the vehicle
As shown in Fig. 1 above, the navigation interface shows a notification (label 1004) of inclement weather at a service station along the route of a vehicle.
Claim 14.
The combination of Quint et al., Li et al., and Brem et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 8, as discussed above. Quint et al. further teaches:
wherein the data processing hardware of the user device is communicatively coupled to the vehicle processor to receive the battery capacity data and configured to display the battery capacity data on the display of the user device
(Quint – [0035]) “display 130 may provide a driver with intermediate charging range information and estimated charge time information based on information output by battery system 108.”
Claim 15.
Quint et al. teaches:
a vehicle processor storing battery capacity data of a battery of a vehicle and including a navigation application configured to provide a location and a route of the vehicle
(Quint – [0005]) “the processing circuitry may be configured to select the suggested charging station by estimating a location of the electric vehicle along a route to the destination at a start time of the identified scheduling event”
(Quint – [0006]) “the processing circuitry may be configured to select the suggested charging station based on one or more of a charge state of the electric vehicle”
a user device including a display and data processing hardware in communication with the display and executing a monitoring application in communication with the vehicle processor and executing a weather application including predicted weather data
(Quint – [0059]) “[Fig. 1 above] shows an exemplary navigation interface 1000 for suggesting an alternative charging station along the suggested route for navigating to destination 406”
Figure 1 additionally shows a notification of inclement weather being presented to a driver (i.e., execution of a weather application).
the data processing hardware configured to receive the vehicle route and provide a notification on the display of the user device corresponding to
(Quint – [0040]) “navigation interface 200 may display user-selectable icons 206 for one or more categories (e.g., food, restrooms, parking, charging) … navigation interface 200 may generate a route to the selected destination.”
Quint et al. does not explicitly teach displaying installation attributes; however, Li et al. teaches:
provide a notification on the display of the user device corresponding to the determined service station having the suitable shelter installation
(Li – [n0006]) “providing the at least one tag to the user includes: displaying the at least one tag together with the point of interest”
(Li – [n0046]) “the tag may also indicate a service environment associated with the point of interest. For example, taking ‘charging station’ as an example, the label can indicate whether it is an underground charging station or a ground charging station, whether it has a roof, or whether it is facing the street, etc.”
It would have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine these teachings for the reasons given in discussion of claim 1.
The rest of the claim is rejected by the same rationale as claim 1.
Claim 16.
Rejected by the same rationale as claim 1.
Claim 17.
The combination of Quint et al., Li et al., and Brem et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 16, as discussed above. Quint et al. further teaches:
wherein the service route database includes an availability status of a charging station at one of the service stations
(Quint – [0049]) “processing circuitry 102 may select charging station 512 based on secondary factors such as… availability of charging spots at the charging station”
Claim 18.
The combination of Quint et al., Li et al., and Brem et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 17, as discussed above. Quint et al. further teaches:
wherein the server processor is configured to identify a service station from the service route database that includes an installation attribute and is configured to determine whether there is sufficient battery capacity of the vehicle to reroute the vehicle route based on the battery capacity data and the predicted weather data
(Quint – [0049]) “if processing circuitry 102 determines that electric vehicle 101 does not have sufficient range to reach charging station 512, processing circuitry 102 may suggest an intermediate charging station to quickly charge electric vehicle 101 to extend the range of electric vehicle 101 to reach charging station 512.”
Claim 19.
The combination of Quint et al., Li et al., and Brem et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 17, as discussed above. Quint et al. further teaches:
wherein the processor is configured to execute the vehicle route in response to a user input to the navigation application and based on the installation attributes stored in the service route database
(Quint – [0090]) “processing circuitry 102 may select the alternative charging station based on, e.g., charging attributes of available charging stations or user input.”
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Quint et al., Li et al., and Brem et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Banerjee et al. (DE 102021004649).
Claim 6.
The combination of Quint et al., Li et al., and Brem et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. None of the aforementioned references explicitly teach receiving an update; however, Banerjee et al. teaches:
wherein the server processor is configured to receive an installation update from a third party device corresponding to the installation attributes of one of the service stations stored in the service route database
(Banerjee – [0016]) “criteria used to characterize the relevance of a charging station for carrying out a charging stop are stored in a database, whereby criteria not previously included in the database are subsequently imported into the database by means of an update.”
It would have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine these teachings, modifying the navigation interface of Quint et al. with the database updates of Banerjee et al. One would have been motivated to do this in order to ensure that the information available to a driver is not out of date.
Claim(s) 7, 11, 12, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Quint et al., Li et al., and Brem et al. as applied to claims 1, 10, and 17 above, and further in view of Liu et al. (US 20240257575).
Claim 7.
The combination of Quint et al., Li et al., and Brem et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above. Quint et al. further teaches:
wherein the monitoring application is configured to display an
(Quint – Claim 5) “wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to: access a weather forecast; identify inclement weather at a location of the suggested charging station based on the weather forecast; in response to identifying the inclement weather at the location of the suggested charging station, select an alternative suggested charging station based on the weather forecast; and generate for presentation, at the display, the alternative suggested charging station.”
Quint et al. does not explicitly teach an alternate route; however, Liu et al. teaches:
an alternate route
(Liu – [0006]) “when the estimated energy consumption is greater than or equal to the current energy capacity, the output is at least one of (a) a recommendation to re-route the vehicle, (b) a recommended alternate route”
It would have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine these teachings, modifying the alternate charging station selection of Quint et al. with the re-routing of Liu et al. One would have been motivated to do this in order to assist a driver in navigating to the alternate location suggested by the navigation system.
Claim 11.
The combination of Quint et al., Li et al., and Brem et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 9, as discussed above. Quint et al. further teaches:
wherein the monitoring application of the user device is configured to provide a route notification on the display
(Quint – Claim 5) “wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to: access a weather forecast; identify inclement weather at a location of the suggested charging station based on the weather forecast; in response to identifying the inclement weather at the location of the suggested charging station, select an alternative suggested charging station based on the weather forecast; and generate for presentation, at the display, the alternative suggested charging station.”
Quint et al. does not explicitly teach a shelter installation; however, Li et al. further teaches:
wherein the monitoring application of the user device is configured to provide
(Li – [n0046]) “the tag may also indicate a service environment associated with the point of interest. For example, taking ‘charging station’ as an example, the label can indicate whether it is an underground charging station or a ground charging station, whether it has a roof, or whether it is facing the street, etc.”
Neither Quint et al. nor Li et al. explicitly teaches an alternate route; however, Liu et al. teaches:
wherein the monitoring application of the user device is configured to provide a route notification
(Liu – [0006]) “when the estimated energy consumption is greater than or equal to the current energy capacity, the output is at least one of (a) a recommendation to re-route the vehicle, (b) a recommended alternate route”
It would have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine these teachings for the reasons given in discussion of claim 7.
Claim 12.
The combination of Quint et al., Li et al., Brem et al., and Liu et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 11, as discussed above. Quint et al. further teaches:
wherein the monitoring application is configured to receive the route notification from the server processor with the server processor being configured to compare the service route database and the installation attributes with the weather data to generate the route notification
(Quint – Claim 5) “wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to: access a weather forecast; identify inclement weather at a location of the suggested charging station based on the weather forecast; in response to identifying the inclement weather at the location of the suggested charging station, select an alternative suggested charging station based on the weather forecast; and generate for presentation, at the display, the alternative suggested charging station.”
Claim 20.
The combination of Quint et al., Li et al., and Brem et al. teaches all the limitations of claim 17, as discussed above. Quint et al. further teaches:
wherein the monitoring application is configured to issue a route notification
(Quint – Claim 5) “wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to: access a weather forecast; identify inclement weather at a location of the suggested charging station based on the weather forecast; in response to identifying the inclement weather at the location of the suggested charging station, select an alternative suggested charging station based on the weather forecast; and generate for presentation, at the display, the alternative suggested charging station.”
None of the aforementioned references explicitly teach an alternate route; however, Liu et al. teaches:
wherein the monitoring application is configured to issue a route notification corresponding to an updated route
(Liu – [0006]) “when the estimated energy consumption is greater than or equal to the current energy capacity, the output is at least one of (a) a recommendation to re-route the vehicle, (b) a recommended alternate route”
It would have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine these teachings for the reasons given in discussion of claim 7.
Conclusion
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARAH A MUELLER whose telephone number is (703)756-4722. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:30-12:00, 1:00-5:30; F 8:00-12:00.
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, Navid Mehdizadeh can be reached at (571)272-7691. 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.
/S.A.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/Hitesh Patel/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3667
10/10/25
Prosecution Insights