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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-15 are currently pending and have been examined.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed
Claim Objections
Claim 8 is objected to because the claim recites “wherein the vehicle information includes information on at least one of an SOC…”. Although SOC may be considered a term of art in the context of electric vehicles, the claim should expressly recite “state of charge”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1-9 and 12-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claim(s) 1 and 15 recite(s) a system and series of steps for adjusting a charger reservation status, which under broadest reasonable interpretation, is analogous to concepts performed in the human mind, such as observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion. These concepts are grouped as mental processes.
The limitation(s) of, ‘adjusting allocation… between a booking time slot… and a free time slot’, as drafted, recite a process that, under broadest reasonable interpretation, is/are mental processes. Accordingly, the claim(s) recite(s) an abstract idea.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim(s) recite(s) the additional element(s) of ‘a processor’ and ‘at least one charger’. These additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that in conjunction with the abstract limitations, they amount to no more than:
mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (i.e., generic computer components performing generic computer functions) (‘a processor’). In their broadest reasonable interpretation, the additional element(s) comprise(s) only a processor, instructions in memory, a display, a receiver, and a transmitter, being used to implement the functions of the abstract idea. Accordingly, the claims do not amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception in a generic computing environment (see MPEP 2106.05(f) Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception). Thus, even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim(s) is/are directed to the judicial exception.
generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (‘at least one charger’).
Claim(s) 2-9 and 12-14 further recite(s) the system and series of steps for adjusting a charger reservation status, which under broadest reasonable interpretation, is analogous to concepts performed in the human mind, such as observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion. These concepts are grouped as mental processes.
The limitation(s) of, ‘adjust the allocation…’, ‘increase allocation of the booking time slot…’, ‘determines that the at least one charger is busy…’, ‘increase allocation of the free time slot…’, ‘determine a current busy status of the at least one charger…’, ‘adjust the current allocation…’, ‘determine a busy status of the at least one charger…’, ‘adjust the allocation…’, ‘determine the busy status…’, ‘adjust allocation…’, as drafted, recite a process that, under broadest reasonable interpretation, is/are mental processes. Accordingly, the claim(s) recite(s) an abstract idea.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim(s) recite(s) the additional element(s) of ‘a processor’, ‘a memory’, ‘a vehicle number estimation model’, ‘a communication unit’, ‘at least one charger’, ‘a plurality of chargers’. These additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that in conjunction with the abstract limitations, they amount to no more than:
mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (i.e., generic computer components performing generic computer functions) (‘a processor’, ‘a memory’, ‘a communication unit’). In their broadest reasonable interpretation, the additional element(s) comprise(s) only a processor, instructions in memory, a display, a receiver, and a transmitter, being used to implement the functions of the abstract idea. Accordingly, the claims do not amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception in a generic computing environment (see MPEP 2106.05(f) Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception). Thus, even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim(s) is/are directed to the judicial exception.
generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (‘a vehicle number estimation model’, ‘at least one charger’, ‘a plurality of chargers’).
Additionally, the claims recite the additional elements of ‘a camera’. These limitation are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a general means of gathering image information), and amount to mere tools for data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Thus, the claim is directed to the abstract idea.
As discussed above, the additional elements amount to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. Here, the data gathering was considered to be extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus it is re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if it is more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field.
The ‘camera’ are considered to be a well‐understood, routine, and conventional element previously known to the industry. The specification describes the camera as equipment used to acquire and communicate image data (¶46 & ¶48), with no additional technical details on the operation of the elements. Thus, the specification demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of additional elements when it describes the additional elements in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) (see MPEP 2106.05(d) Well- Understood, Routine, Conventional Activity). Thus, the claim is not patent eligible.
As analyzed above, the limitations as an ordered combination, are merely applying the abstract idea in a generic computing environment. In addition, the claims do not improve functionality of a computer or improve any other technology. Thus, claims 1-9 and 12-15 are ineligible as the claims do not recite additional elements which result in significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
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) 1-12 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sun (U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 20210213848).
In regards to claim 1, Sun teaches A management apparatus that manages charging of electrified vehicles with at least one charger, the management apparatus comprising a processor (Sun: ¶16, ¶42, ¶160 disclose a charger management computing system comprising a processor, a computer-readable medium storing computer-readable instructions, and a plurality of Electric Vehicle Service Equipment, i.e., chargers) programmed to adjust allocation between a booking time slot to book charging with the at least one charger and a free time slot to allow charging with the at least one charger without a booking (Sun: ¶16-19, ¶33, ¶56-64, ¶84, ¶121-127, ¶137 disclose a charger management system configured to allow both reservation charging sessions and ad hoc charging sessions, wherein, based on a plurality of factors, the system may adjust the allocation of the reservation charging time periods and the ad hoc charging time periods).
In regards to claim 2, Sun teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Sun further teaches adjust the allocation based on at least one of information on a busy status of the at least one charger, or information on a booking status of the at least one charger (Sun: ¶16-19, ¶33, ¶56-64, ¶84, ¶121-127, ¶135-138, ¶142-143 disclose adjusting the charging allocation based on occupancy status information, i.e., a busy status).
In regards to claim 3, Sun teaches the apparatus of claim 2. Sun further teaches when the number of the electrified vehicles booked in a predetermined booking period is greater than a predetermined number, increase allocation of the booking time slot in the predetermined booking period (Sun: ¶16-19, ¶31-38, ¶49-51, ¶56-64, ¶84, ¶121-127, ¶135-138, ¶142-143 disclose adjusting the charging allocation based on booking information within a specified window of time).
In regards to claim 4, Sun teaches the apparatus of claim 2. Sun further teaches determines that the at least one charger is busy in a predetermined period based on the information on the busy status, increase allocation of the free time slot in the predetermined period (Sun: ¶16-19, ¶33, ¶56-64, ¶84, ¶121-127, ¶135-138, ¶142-143 disclose adjusting the charging allocation based on occupancy status information, i.e., a busy status).
In regards to claim 5, Sun teaches the apparatus of claim 2. Sun further teaches wherein: the information on the busy status is the number of the electrified vehicles in queue to use the at least one charger; and the processor is programed to determine a current busy status of the at least one charger based on the number of the electrified vehicles in queue, and adjust the current allocation based on the current busy status (Sun: ¶16-19, ¶33, ¶56-64, ¶84, ¶121-127, ¶135-138, ¶142-143 disclose adjusting the charging allocation based on occupancy status information, i.e., a busy status, wherein the occupancy status includes queued vehicle information).
In regards to claim 6, Sun teaches the apparatus of claim 2. Sun further teaches determine a busy status of the at least one charger after a predetermined period of time based on vehicle information on the electrified vehicles, and adjust the allocation after the predetermined period of time based on the busy status after the predetermined period of time (Sun: ¶16-19, ¶33, ¶56-64, ¶84, ¶121-127, ¶135-143 disclose adjusting the charging allocation based on occupancy status information, i.e., a busy status, wherein the occupancy status is determined based on vehicle information after an overstay grace period, i.e., a predetermined period of time).
In regards to claim 7, Sun teaches the apparatus of claim 6. Sun further teaches wherein the vehicle information includes information on the number of the electrified vehicles located within a predetermined range with reference to the at least one charger (Sun: ¶46, ¶49-51, ¶56-64, ¶92 disclose wherein the vehicle information includes a proximal distance information between the vehicle and the charger).
In regards to claim 8, Sun teaches the apparatus of claim 6. Sun further teaches wherein the vehicle information includes information on at least one of an SOC or a charging capacity, the SOC and the charging capacity being acquired from each of the electrified vehicles associated with the at least one charger (Sun: ¶28, ¶37, ¶110, ¶144 disclose wherein the vehicle information includes state of charge information).
In regards to claim 9, Sun teaches the apparatus of claim 6. Sun further teaches a memory storing a vehicle number estimation model, wherein: the vehicle number estimation model is a trained model that uses the vehicle information as an input and that uses the number of the electrified vehicles that use the at least one charger as an output (Sun: ¶16, ¶39-42, ¶143-144, ¶160 disclose an availability model configured to receive vehicle information and reservation information inputs and output charger scheduling information); and the processor is programmed to determine the busy status after the predetermined period of time based on the vehicle number estimation model and the vehicle information (Sun: ¶16-19, ¶33, ¶56-64, ¶84, ¶121-127, ¶135-143 disclose determining the occupancy status based on vehicle information after an overstay grace period, i.e., a predetermined period of time).
In regards to claim 10, Sun teaches the apparatus of claim 6. Sun further teaches
control the at least one charger such that a charge mode for the booking time slot and a charge mode for the free time slot are respectively one and the other of quick charge and low-rate charge lower in rate of charge than the quick charge (Sun: ¶19-30, ¶52, ¶109-113 disclose controlling the charger power distribution based on met conditions, such as, reservation information, vehicle state of charge, battery level, charging priority, etc.).
In regards to claim 11, Sun teaches the apparatus of claim 10. Sun further teaches
wherein the processor is programmed to control the at least one charger such that a charge mode for a charger changed from the free time slot to the booking time slot is set to the low-rate charge and a charge mode for a charger changed from the booking time slot to the free time slot is set to the quick charge (Sun: ¶19-30, ¶52, ¶109-113 disclose controlling the charger power distribution based on met conditions, such as, reservation information, vehicle state of charge, battery level, charging priority, etc.).
In regards to claim 12, Sun teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Sun further teaches
wherein the at least one charger includes a plurality of chargers; and the processor is programmed to adjust allocation of the plurality of chargers between the number of chargers for the free time slot and the number of chargers for the booking time slot (Sun: ¶16-19, ¶33, ¶42, ¶56-64, ¶84, ¶106, ¶121-127, ¶137, ¶160 disclose a charger management computing system comprising a plurality of Electric Vehicle Service Equipment, i.e., chargers, configured to specify that a predetermined number of the plurality of EVSEs are to be made available for reserved charging sessions, and/or the remaining number of EVSEs are to be made available on a first come first served basis).
In regards to claim 15, the claim recites the same or similar limitations as those addressed above in claim 1 and therefore is rejected for the same reasons set forth above for claim 1.
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) 13 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun (U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 20210213848), in view of Saito (U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 20190009683).
In regards to claim 13, Sun teaches the apparatus of claim 2. Although Sun teaches communicating the charger occupancy status information, reservation information, and vehicle information to the management system, the reference does not explicitly state a communication unit configured to acquire this information.
However, Saito teaches a communication unit configured to acquire the information on the busy status of the at least one charger and the information on the booking status of the at least one charger (Saito: ¶13-17, ¶19, ¶109 disclose a communication unit configured to receive image data from a camera in the vicinity of the charger, wherein the image data is analyzed to determine occupancy status information and vehicle information).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the communication unit and camera, as taught by Saito, into the method and system of Sun. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification so that “the charging wait time for the electric vehicle at the charging station can be calculated with a higher degree of accuracy” (Saito: ¶39).
In regards to claim 14, Sun and Saito teach the apparatus of claim 13. Saito further teaches wherein the communication unit is configured to acquire information on the number of the electrified vehicles in queue by acquiring an image from a camera installed around the charger (Saito: ¶13-17, ¶19, ¶109 disclose a communication unit configured to receive image data from a camera in the vicinity of the charger, wherein the image data is analyzed to determine occupancy status information and vehicle information).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the communication unit and camera, as taught by Saito, into the method and system of Sun. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification so that “the charging wait time for the electric vehicle at the charging station can be calculated with a higher degree of accuracy” (Saito: ¶39).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WAYNE S MURRAY whose telephone number is (571)272-4306. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm.
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, Jeffrey Zimmerman can be reached at (571) 272-4602. 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.
/Wayne S. Murray/Examiner, Art Unit 3628
/JEFF ZIMMERMAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3628