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 .
This office action is responsive to the application filed 12/12/2023 which claims 1-20 have been presented for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDSs) submitted on 08/25/2025 and 06/01/2026 have been considered by the examiner.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "a second location of the another vehicle" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as there is no prior mention of a first location of the another vehicle in the claim.
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 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 11 recites the limitations of “determining whether a charge sharing request criterion applicable to a first vehicle has been satisfied”; and “generating a charge sharing request to be sent from the first vehicle to a second vehicle”; and Claim 17 recites the limitations of “receiving, by a system, a charge sharing request from a first vehicle”; and determining, by the system, a second vehicle from which to supply a charge to the first vehicle via the system”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is other than reciting a processor nothing in the claims precludes the steps from being performed in the mind. For example, but for the recitation of a processor, these claims encompass a person determining whether the charge sharing request satisfies a criterion and generating a charge sharing request. If a claim limitation, under broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the "Mental Processes" grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Claims 11 and 17 recites the additional element “a processor”, which is recited at a high level of generality and amount to mere data gathering which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Accordingly, the additional limitation does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Claims 11 and 17 as a whole merely describes how to generally "apply" the concept of establishing a charge request to transfer energy. The claimed computer component is recited at a high generality and are merely invoked as a tool to perform an existing process. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. As such the claims are ineligible.
The dependent claims do not recite additional limitations beyond those identified as the judicial exception in the independent claims that would qualify as significantly more. The dependent claims do not amount to significantly more than the identified abstract idea. The dependent claims do not recite limitations that transforms the corresponding independent claims into a patent-eligible application of the otherwise ineligible abstract idea recited in the independent claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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)(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) 1-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Ropel et al. (US 2024/0140218 A1) (hereinafter “Ropel”).
The applied reference has a common joint inventor with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B) if the same invention is not being claimed; or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed in the reference and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement.
Regarding claim 1, Ropel discloses a vehicle, comprising:
a memory (804) that stores computer executable components (paras. 0085-0086); and
a processor (806) that executes the computer executable components stored in the memory (paras. 0085-0086), wherein the computer executable components comprise:
a charge sharing determination component (812) that, based on a charge sharing request from another vehicle, other than the vehicle, determines whether a condition of a battery of the vehicle satisfies a charge sharing criterion applicable to the charge sharing request (paras. 0054, 0058, 0109-0110, 0113-0115, 0140); and
a communication component (816) that, based on the condition of the battery being determined to satisfy the charge sharing criterion, establishes a communicative connection with the another vehicle (862) (paras. 0117-0118).
Regarding claim 2, Ropel further discloses the vehicle of claim 1, wherein the computer executable components further comprise: a navigation component that, in response to the communicative connection being established with the another vehicle, generates a route from a first location of the vehicle to a second location of the another vehicle (paras. 0114-0118, 0124, 0126-0127).
Regarding claim 3, Ropel further discloses the vehicle of claim 1, wherein the communicative connection comprises payment rate data representative of a payment rate for a charge transfer from the vehicle to the another vehicle (paras. 0107, 0112).
Regarding claim 4, Ropel further discloses the vehicle of claim 1, wherein the communicative connection comprises payment method data representative of a payment method applicable to a charge transfer from the vehicle to the another vehicle (para. 0107 describes a compensation agreement).
Regarding claim 5, Ropel further discloses the vehicle of claim 1, wherein the communicative connection comprises charge port connector data representative of a type of charge port or cable available to charge transfer from the vehicle to the another vehicle (paras. 0104, 0107).
Regarding claim 6, Ropel further discloses the vehicle of claim 1, wherein the condition of the battery comprises a state of charge of the battery, and wherein the communicative connection comprises available charge data representative of an amount of charge available to be transferred from the vehicle to the another vehicle (paras. 0058, 0105, 0140).
Regarding claim 7, Ropel further discloses the vehicle of claim 6, wherein the amount of charge available to be transferred from the vehicle to the another vehicle is determined by the charge sharing determination component based on historical driving data applicable to the vehicle (paras. 0054, 0115).
Regarding claim 8, Ropel further discloses the vehicle of claim 6, wherein the amount of charge available to be transferred from the vehicle to the another vehicle is determined by the charge sharing determination component based on calendar event data applicable to a user of the vehicle (paras. 0112, 0115).
Regarding claim 9, Ropel further discloses the vehicle of claim 6, wherein the amount of charge available to be transferred from the vehicle to the another vehicle is determined by the charge sharing determination component based on a first location of the vehicle and a location of the another vehicle (paras. 0114-0118, 0124, 0126-0127, 0139).
Regarding claim 10, Ropel further discloses the vehicle of claim 1, wherein the computer executable components further comprise: a charge transfer component that, based on a charge transfer criterion being determined to be satisfied, initiates a charge transfer from the vehicle to the another vehicle (paras. 0113, 0120-0122).
Regarding claims 11 and 12, Ropel discloses a non-transitory machine-readable medium, comprising executable instructions that, when executed by a processor (paras. 0085-0086), facilitate performance of operations, comprising:
determining whether a charge sharing request criterion applicable to a first vehicle has been satisfied;
in response to the charge sharing request criterion being determined to be satisfied, generating a charge sharing request to be sent from the first vehicle to a second vehicle, other than the first vehicle;
sending the charge sharing request from the first vehicle to the second vehicle. (See paras. 0054, 0058, 0109-0110, 0113-0115, 0140)
Regarding claim 13, Ropel further discloses the non-transitory machine-readable medium of claim 11, wherein the charge sharing request comprises location information applicable to the first vehicle (paras. 0104, 014-0117).
Regarding claim 14, Ropel further discloses the non-transitory machine-readable medium of claim 11, wherein the charge sharing request comprises payment rate data representative of a payment rate for a charge transfer from the second vehicle to the first vehicle (paras. 0107, 0112).
Regarding claim 15, Ropel further discloses the non-transitory machine-readable medium of claim 11, wherein the charge sharing request comprises charge port connector data representative of a type of charge port or cable available to charge transfer from the second vehicle to the first vehicle (paras. 0104, 0107).
Regarding claim 16, Ropel further discloses the non-transitory machine-readable medium of claim 11, wherein the charge sharing request comprises an amount of charge requested by the first vehicle (paras. 0058, 0105, 0140).
Claim(s) 17 and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Nakagawa (US 12,024,041).
Regarding claims 17 and 19-20, Nakagawa discloses a method, comprising:
receiving, by a system comprising a processor, a charge sharing request from a first vehicle (see col. 2, lines 59-67);
based on the charge sharing request, determining, by the system, a second vehicle from which to supply a charge to the first vehicle via the system (col. 2, line 67 to col. 3, line 6); and
based on a charge sharing criterion being determined to be satisfied, initiating, by the system, a charge transfer from the second vehicle to the first vehicle via the system (col. 3, lines 19 to col. 4, line 62);
wherein the system comprises a bidirectional charging station (col. 3, lines 19 to col. 4, line 62); and
wherein the charge sharing criterion is based on the second vehicle comprising a threshold level of remaining charge (col. 3, lines 19 to col. 4, line 62).
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) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakagawa (US 12,024,041) in view of Wang et al. (US 2021/0284043) (hereinafter “Wang”), cited by the applicant.
Nakagawa fails to specifically teach wherein the method further comprises: based on a second charge sharing criterion being determined to be satisfied, initiating, by the system, a second charge transfer from a third vehicle to the first vehicle via the system, concurrent with the first charge transfer.
Wang discloses a system for rapid charge transfer, the system comprising a first vehicle (106a) configured to receive a charge transfer from a second vehicle (102b) and a third vehicle (102c) (see fig. 5; and paras. 0130, 0136, 0143).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the teachings of Wang and Nakagawa in order to allow for more rapid charge transfer between multiple entities which would reduce travel time as multiple entities are able to receive a charge during their destination route.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please refer to the attached PTO-892 form.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to APRIL A TAYLOR whose telephone number is (571)272-2403. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday between 9am-6pm.
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 S PAIK can be reached at 571-272-2404. 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.
/APRIL A TAYLOR/Examiner, Art Unit 2876
/THIEN M LE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2876
Prosecution Insights