DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
Claims 4 and 14 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 4, the recitation of “presentated” in line 2 is suggested to change to - - presented - -.
Regarding claim 14, the recitation of “the hub” in line 2 is suggested to change to - - the fiber hub - -.
Appropriate corrections are required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 12 and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the chagrining stations" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 14-18 and 20 recite the limitation "the transmitter" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the chagrining stations" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "the transmitter" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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) 1-7 and 12-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fox et al. (US 2020/0175614) in view of Zhao et al. (US 2016/0352113).
Regarding claim 1, Fox teaches a system for communication at an electric vehicle charging site (51, fig. 1), comprising: an electric vehicle chagrining station (30) for charging an electric vehicle (14); a network operations center (50) providing wired or wireless communication to at least the electric vehicle charging station; a fiber hub located on the charging site and connecting a high-speed fiber-in line, from off-site, to at least one fiber-distribution line exiting the fiber hub ([0019] and [0023]-[0026]); wherein the network operation center is configured to send information to one or more persons in proximity including at least a driver of the electric vehicle and other inside or outside the electric vehicle ([0030]); the information form the network operations center comprising a menu of at least electric vehicle data and advertising data (fig. 4), the electric charging station is connected to the fiber hub by the at least one of fiber-distribution line exiting the fiber hub (fig. 1 and [0019]); and the electric vehicle charging site provides for the one or more persons in proximity a combination of electric vehicle charging, high speed fiber internet communication, the electric vehicle data, and the advertising data (fig. 1).
Fox is silent to a small cell wireless transceiver as claimed.
However, Zhao teaches electric vehicle charging site (fig. 1) comprising a communication device that include one or more transceivers (38) for performing wireless communication ([0022]).
In view of Zhao’s teaching, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Fox by incorporating the teaching as taught by Zhao in order to arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 2, Fox as modified by Zhao teaches all subject matter claimed as applied above. Fox further teaches wherein the network operations center is connected to the fiber hub through the at least one fiber-distribution line (fig. 1 and [0019]).
Regarding claim 3, Fox as modified by Zhao teaches all subject matter claimed as applied above. Fox further teaches wherein the information from the network operations center is broadcast from the transceiver or is alternatively broadcast over a cell network ([0019] and [0026]).
Regarding claim 4, Fox as modified by Zhao teaches all subject matter claimed as applied above. Fox further teaches wherein the advertising data comprises digital out-of-home advertising comprising digital media presented as digital billboards appearing on displays in a vicinity of the transceiver (fig. 4 and [0031]).
Regarding claim 5, Fox as modified by Zhao teaches all subject matter claimed as applied above. Fox further teaches wherein the information from the network operations center comprises historical data including one or more past electric charge dates, past times, and amounts of electric charge for the electric vehicle (fig. 4 and [0038]).
Regarding claim 6, Fox as modified by Zhao teaches all subject matter claimed as applied above. Fox further teaches wherein the menu comprises a menu of services displayed to the one or more persons in proximity to the transceiver (fig. 4 and [0038]).
Regarding claim 7, Fox as modified by Zhao teaches all subject matter claimed as applied above. Fox further teaches wherein the menu of services comprises the electric vehicle data and digital out-of-home advertising data presented as digital billboards appearing on displays in a vicinity of the transceiver (fig. 4 and [0038]).
Regarding claim 12, Fox as modified by Zhao teaches all subject matter claimed as applied above. Fox further teaches wherein the network operations center is on site near the charging stations ([0026]).
Regarding claim 13, Fox as modified by Zhao teaches all subject matter claimed as applied above. Both Fox and Zhao further teach wherein the network operations center is off site and in internet communication with the fiber hub (Fox: fig. 1 and [0019]. Zhao: fig. 1 and [0022]).
Regarding claim 14, Fox as modified by Zhao teaches all subject matter claimed as applied above. Both Fox and Zhao further teach wherein the network operations center is in fiber communication with the fiber hub and the transceiver (Fox: fig. 1 and [0019]. Zhao: fig. 1 and [0022]).
Regarding claim 15, Fox as modified by Zhao teaches all subject matter claimed as applied above. Both Fox and Zhao further teach wherein the charging stations are in fiber communication with the fiber hub and the transceiver (Fox: fig. 1 and [0019]. Zhao: fig. 1 and [0022]).
Regarding claim 16, Fox as modified by Zhao teaches all subject matter claimed as applied above. Fox further teaches wherein the electric vehicle is in wireless communication with the transceiver and thereby in communication at least with the network operation center (fig. 1 and [0026]).
Regarding claim 17, Fox as modified by Zhao teaches all subject matter claimed as applied above. Fox further teaches wherein a mobile device ([0030]) of the driver of the electronic vehicle is in wireless communication with the transceiver and thereby in communication to the internet ([0025] and [0026]).
Regarding claim 18, Fox as modified by Zhao teaches all subject matter claimed as applied above. Fox further teaches wherein the electronic vehicle is in wireless communication with the transceiver and thereby in communication to the internet ([0026] and [0030]).
Regarding claim 19, Fox as modified by Zhao teaches all subject matter claimed as applied above. Fox further teaches wherein a personal computing device of the others inside or outside the electronic vehicle is in wireless communication with the transceiver and thereby in communication to the internet and thereby receives the advertising data ([0030]).
Regarding claim 20, Fox as modified by Zhao teaches all subject matter claimed as applied above. Fox further teaches wherein a mobile device of the others side or outside the electric vehicle are in wireless communication with the transceiver and thereby in communication to the internet and thereby receives the advertising data ([0030]).
Claim(s) 8-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fox as modified by Zhao as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Forbes, JR. et al. (US 2021/0142411).
Regarding claims 8-11, Fox as modified by Zhao teaches all subject matter claimed as applied above. Fox further teaches wherein the menu of services comprise the electric vehicle data, the digital out-of-home advertising data (fig. 4) except for the menu service comprises map data and/or other limitations as claimed.
However, Forbes teaches menu of services comprise map data and other data as claimed (figs. 2A-2F and [0021]-[0025]).
In view of Forbes’s teaching, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Fox by incorporating the menu service comprises map data and/or other data claimed since it is just a matter of design option to provide desired data or information to the driver or customer.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
References: Pandhi et al. (US 2019/0344672); Ahmed et al. (US 2019/0105994); Gharabegian (US 2019/0087878); Breuel et al. (US 2016/0375898) and Levy et al. (US 2011/0191186) are cited because they are related to electric vehicle charging system.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Tuyen Kim Vo whose telephone number is (571)270-1657. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs: 8AM-6:30PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Steven Paik can be reached at 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.
/TUYEN K VO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2876
Prosecution Insights