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 .
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.
Claim Status
This action is in response to applicant’s response and claim amendment filed 9/5/2025. Claims 1-20 are pending and considered below.
Response to Arguments
Claim 1 was rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent Number 11,808,592. Claim 1 has been amended. Claims 2-20 have been added. Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent Number 11,808,592 for the reasons given below.
Claim 1 was 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 integrating the judicial exception into a practical application and without an additional element which amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claim 1 has been amended. Claims 2-20 have been added. Claims 1, 4-7, 9, 11, 14-17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for the reasons given below.
Claim 1 was rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fisher et al. (US-2013/0179057-A1). Fisher discloses travel planning for an electric vehicle (EV) using a central server in communication with EVs and client devices (Abstract). A user conducts a search for a charging station on a client device by specifying charging station brand, charger levels, pricing, and other criteria such as network stations only, free stations only, and public stations (paragraph [0087]). A client application screen displays a listing of charging stations identified by the search (paragraph [0088]).
Regarding claims 1-19, the prior art does not disclose accessing context information for a current trip traveled by the electric vehicle associated with the request, including a predicted energy usage for the electric vehicle when traveling along a route that is part of the current trip traveled by the electric vehicle.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fisher for the reasons given below.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent Number 11,808,592. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
“receiving a request from an electric vehicle to find a charging station” of U.S. Patent Number 11,808,592 is the same as “receiving a request from an electric vehicle to find a charging station” of the instant application;
“accessing context information for a current trip traveled by the electric vehicle associated with the request” of U.S. Patent Number 11,808,592 is the same as “accessing context information for a current trip traveled by the electric vehicle associated with the request” of the instant application;
“determining a predicted energy usage for the electric vehicle based on a historical energy usage of the electric vehicle when traveling along a route that is part of the current trip” of U.S. Patent Number 11,808,592 is equivalent to “including a predicted energy usage for the electric vehicle when traveling along a route that is part of the current trip traveled by the electric vehicle” of the instant application;
“identifying one or more charging stations that include characteristics matching the context information for the current trip traveled by the electric vehicle” of U.S. Patent Number 11,808,592 is the same as “identifying one or more charging stations that include characteristics matching the context information for the current trip traveled by the electric vehicle” of the instant application; and
“presenting information to the electric vehicle via a user interface of the electric vehicle that indicates the identified one or more charging stations” of U.S. Patent Number 11,808,592 is the same as “presenting information to the electric vehicle via a user interface of the electric vehicle that indicates the identified one or more charging stations” of the instant application.
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, 4-7, 9, 11, 14-17 and 19 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 integrating the judicial exception into a practical application and without an additional element which amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claims 1-10, step 1 analysis, the subject matter of claims 1-10 is included in the four patent-eligible subject matter categories (e.g., process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter). Claims 1-10 are directed to a method.
Claims 1-10 are directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea). The claim limitations recite a revised step 2A, prong one, abstract idea (a mental process involving observation and evaluation which could be performed in the human mind). Claims 1-10 are directed to a method for identifying one or more charging stations that include characteristics matching the context information for a current trip traveled by an electric vehicle. This limitation is a simple process that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, the claims encompass a driver of an electric vehicle estimating energy usage for a current trip; and identifying which charging stations are located proximate to a current geographical route traveled by or predicted to be traveled by the electric vehicle, have a charging cost that is below a predetermined maximum cost to charge the electric vehicle and/or are part of a charging network of which the electric vehicle is a member. Thus, the claims recite a mental process.
Claims 1-10 include the revised step 2A, prong two, additional elements of receiving a request from an electric vehicle to find a charging station; accessing context information for a current trip traveled by the electric vehicle associated with the request; and presenting information to the electric vehicle via a user interface of the electric vehicle that indicates the identified one or more charging stations. Receiving a request and accessing context information amount to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Presenting information is insignificant post-solution activity. Claims 1, 4-7 and 9 do not recite revised step 2A, prong two, additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Claims 1, 4-7 and 9 generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use (electric vehicle charging systems).
Claims 2-3, 8 and 10 include the additional limitation of displaying, within a displayed map, icons representative of the charging stations. This additional element integrates the abstract idea into a practical application by providing the driver of the electric vehicle with useful information in a form which is practical to use while driving. Therefore, claims 2-3, 8 and 10 are not rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 1, 4-7 and 9 include the step 2B additional element of a user interface. Applicant’s specification does not provide any indication that the user interface is anything other than a conventional user interface. Presenting information is a well-understood, routine and conventional function when claimed using a generic user interface. User interfaces are widely prevalent and in common use in electric vehicle charging systems. A user interface is not significantly more than the judicial exception since it is a well-understood, routine and conventional feature previously known to the electric vehicle industry. Therefore, claims 1, 4-7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Regarding claims 11-19, step 1 analysis, the subject matter of claims 11-19 is included in the four patent-eligible subject matter categories. Claims 11-19 are directed to a device.
Claims 11-19 are directed to a judicial exception. The claim limitations recite a revised step 2A, prong one, abstract idea (a mental process involving observation and evaluation which could be performed in the human mind). Claims 11-19 are directed to a device for identifying one or more charging stations that include characteristics matching the context information for a current trip traveled by an electric vehicle. This limitation is a simple process that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, the claims encompass a driver of an electric vehicle estimating energy usage for a current trip; and identifying which charging stations are located proximate to a current geographical route traveled by or predicted to be traveled by the electric vehicle, have a charging cost that is below a predetermined maximum cost to charge the electric vehicle and/or are part of a charging network of which the electric vehicle is a member. Thus, the claims recite a mental process.
Claims 11-19 include the revised step 2A, prong two, additional elements of receiving a request from an electric vehicle to find a charging station; accessing context information for a current trip traveled by the electric vehicle associated with the request; and presenting information to the electric vehicle that indicates the identified one or more charging stations. Receiving a request and accessing context information amount to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Presenting information is insignificant post-solution activity. Claims 11, 14-17 and 19 do not recite revised step 2A, prong two, additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Claims 11, 14-17 and 19 generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use (electric vehicle charging systems).
Claims 12-13 and 18 include the additional limitation of displaying, within a displayed map, icons representative of the charging stations. This additional element integrates the abstract idea into a practical application by providing the driver of the electric vehicle with useful information in a form which is practical to use while driving. Therefore, claims 12-13 and 18 are not rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 11, 14-17 and 19 include the step 2B additional elements of a non-transitory, computer-readable storage medium, a mobile application, and a mobile device. Applicant’s specification does not provide any indication that the medium, application, and mobile device are anything other than conventional media, applications, and mobile devices. Receiving and accessing data, and presenting information are well-understood, routine and conventional functions when claimed using a generic storage medium. Presenting information is a well-understood, routine and conventional function when claimed using generic applications and mobile devices. Media, applications, and mobile devices are widely prevalent and in common use in electric vehicle charging systems. Media, applications, and mobile devices are not significantly more than the judicial exception since they are well-understood, routine and conventional features previously known to the electric vehicle industry. Therefore, claims 11, 14-17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Regarding claim 20, step 1 analysis, the subject matter of claim 20 is included in the four patent-eligible subject matter categories. Claim 20 is directed to a device.
Claim 20 is directed to a judicial exception. The claim limitations recite a revised step 2A, prong one, abstract idea (a mental process involving observation and evaluation which could be performed in the human mind). Claim 20 is directed to a device for identifying one or more charging stations that include characteristics matching the context information for a current trip traveled by an electric vehicle. This limitation is a simple process that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, the claim encompasses a driver of an electric vehicle estimating energy usage for a current trip; and identifying which charging stations are located proximate to a current geographical route traveled by or predicted to be traveled by the electric vehicle, have a charging cost that is below a predetermined maximum cost to charge the electric vehicle and/or are part of a charging network of which the electric vehicle is a member. Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
Claim 20 includes the revised step 2A, prong two, additional elements of receiving a request from an electric vehicle to find a charging station; accessing context information for a current trip traveled by the electric vehicle associated with the request; and presenting information to the electric vehicle via a user interface of the electric vehicle that indicates the identified one or more charging stations. Receiving a request and accessing context information amount to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Presenting information is insignificant post-solution activity.
Claim 20 includes the additional limitation of presenting information to the electric vehicle via a user interface of the electric vehicle that indicates the identified one or more charging stations, including: a graphical element indicating a range of travel available to the electric vehicle based on a predicted available energy for the electric vehicle for the electric vehicle, and icons representative of the identified charging stations located within the range of travel available to the electric vehicle. This additional element integrates the abstract idea into a practical application by providing the driver of the electric vehicle with useful information in a form which is practical to use while driving. Therefore, claim 20 is not rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
See, the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, which is available on the USPTO Website.
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.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fisher et al. (US-2013/0179057-A1, hereinafter Fisher).
Regarding claim 20, Fisher discloses:
A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium whose contents, when executed by an electric vehicle, cause the electric vehicle to perform a method, the method comprising: (paragraphs [0065-0076]);
receiving a request from an electric vehicle to find a charging station (paragraph [0084]; FIG. 1, client-11, server-12, EV-15, application-20, and network devices associated with electric vehicle charging stations-30; and FIG. 17, Add Charging Station);
accessing context information for a current trip traveled by the electric vehicle associated with the request (paragraphs [0083-0091] and FIG. 23, Network Stations Only, Free Stations Only, Public Stations Only, and Favorites Only);
identifying one or more charging stations that include characteristics matching the context information for the current trip traveled by the electric vehicle (paragraphs [0087-0088] and FIG. 24, client application screen display showing a listing of charging stations found near a requested or current location);
presenting information to the electric vehicle via a user interface of the electric vehicle that indicates the identified one or more charging stations, including: (paragraphs [0087-0088] and FIG. 25, map display showing locations of the charging stations);
a graphical element indicating a range of travel available to the electric vehicle based on a predicted available energy for the electric vehicle for the electric vehicle (paragraphs [0073] and [0089-0090]; FIG. 3, client application screen display indicating a readiness status of the electric vehicle; and FIG. 29, client application screen display showing a car’s present location and status, and a series of route points for a trip); and
icons representative of the identified charging stations located within the range of travel available to the electric vehicle (paragraph [0090]; FIG. 30, client application screen display regarding planning a proposed trip; and FIG. 32, map screen display illustrating the proposed route).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Taguchi (US-2011/0032110-A1) discloses an electric vehicle in which a control section checks whether a remaining electric power amount of a battery at a departure point is less than a total electric power amount required for the electric vehicle to travel to a destination point. If the remaining electric power amount is less than the required total electric power amount, the control section displays insufficiency information (Abstract).
Levy et al. (US-2011/0191186-A1) discloses an electric vehicle computer system which connects to a remote database. The computer system recommends to a driver to start a charge event based on location and proximity to a charging station, discharge history, power capacity, power cost, time of day, and power generation means (Abstract).
Daum et al. (US-2012/0316717-A1) discloses an energy management system which calculates estimated electric loads for powering vehicle motors over one or more segments of a trip according to designated operational settings of a trip plan (Abstract).
Kiyama et al. (US-2013/0261953-A1) discloses a system for an electric automobile which searches for a fastest route taking into account charging times in charging stations and moving times among the charging stations. When an electric automobile cannot reach a second point from a first point without the battery being charged, a route-search processing section specifies charging stations which the electric automobile is to pass through in order to reach the second point from the first point (Abstract).
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 TAMARA L WEBER whose telephone number is (303)297-4249. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30-5:00 MTN.
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, Faris Almatrahi can be reached at 3134464821. 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.
TAMARA L. WEBER
Examiner
Art Unit 3667
/TAMARA L WEBER/ Examiner, Art Unit 3667