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
This action claims priority to DE102023106338.3.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 03/19/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
1. Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Recited is “chagrining” which should read “charging”.
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.
2. Claim 1, and therefore dependent claims, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites reserving a charging column of a charging station. The limitation of determining a designated charging column based on data of an electric vehicle and data of the selected charging station, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “by a cloud server,” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “by a cloud server” language, “determining” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually determining which column will be designated based on open ended data.
Similarly, the limitation of reserving the designated charging station, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the “by the cloud server” language, “reserving” in the context of this claim encompasses the user thinking mentally reserves a charging column, which merely expresses a preference that does effect a meaningful change on a physical object, but changes an abstract categorization of an object.
Similarly, the limitation of ascertaining approach information based on the data of the electric vehicle and the data of the selected charging station, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the “by the cloud server” language, “ascertaining” in the context of this claim encompasses the user thinking mentally reserves a charging column, which merely expresses a receiving information.
If a claim limitation, under its 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. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites one additional element – using a cloud server to perform the determining, reserving and ascertaining steps. The cloud server in both steps is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of determining based on a determined amount of use) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a cloud server to perform the determining, reserving and ascertaining steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
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 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.
3. Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite, for having limitations that self-contradict each other.
Claim 8 requires that the selected charging station and the selected charging period are selected independently of each other. However, claim 7, which is depended upon by claim 8, limits that the designated charging column is determined as a function of a selected charging period. The selected charging station and the selected charging period cannot both be selected independently and selected based on each other. Therefore, this is considered indefinite as it is illogical.
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)(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.
4. Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Hau
As to claim 1: Hau teaches a method for reserving a charging column of a charging station, the method comprising:
determining a designated charging column of a selected charging station, by a cloud server, based on data of an electric vehicle (figure 12, 1230, pose information, paragraph 0073) and data of the selected charging station (paragraph 0073, the charging station with the shortest navigation route, or position of the station);
reserving the designated charging column of the selected charging station by the cloud server (figure 12, 1240, allocates); and
ascertaining approach information concerning driving of the electric vehicle within the selected charging station to the designated charging column by the cloud server, based on the data of the electric vehicle and the data of the selected charging station (paragraph 0073, claim 1).
As to claim 2: Hau teaches that at least one of a maximum charging power, a position of a charging connection, and a size of the electric vehicle is ascertained as the data of the electric vehicle (paragraph 0040).
As to claim 3: Hau teaches that the cloud server ascertains the data of the electric vehicle by an identifier of the electric vehicle (paragraph 0045).
As to claim 4: Hau teaches at least one of a number of charging columns, a configuration and orientation of each charging column, an average capacity utilization, a maximum charging power, a probability of failure, an availability, a length of a charging cable, and a frequency of a reduction in charging power of each charging column is ascertained as the data of the charging station (paragraphs 0073, 0067, 0048).
As to claim 5: Hau teaches transmitting the ascertained approach information to a mobile terminal of a driver of the electric vehicle by the cloud server (paragraphs 0018 and 0126); and
manually activating the designated charging column based on the transmitted approach information by the driver (figure 12, step 1270 to 1275).
As to claim 6: Hau teaches transmitting the ascertained approach information to a driver assistance system of the electric vehicle by the cloud server (paragraphs 0045, 0126); and
at least semiautonomously activating the designated charging column based on the transmitted approach information by the driver assistance system (figure 12, 1270 to 1277).
As to claim 7: Hau teaches that the designated charging column is determined as a function of a selected charging period (paragraph 0040).
As to claim 8: Hau teaches that the selected charging station and the selected charging period are selected independently of each other (paragraph 0040).
As to claim 9: Hau teaches reserving the designated charging column for the selected charging period by the cloud server (paragraph 0040, figure 12, 1240).
As to claim 10: Hau teaches providing a visually perceivable signal at a start of the selected charging period by the designated charging column (paragraph 0105).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID P TARDIF whose telephone number is (571)270-7810. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 11AM-7:30PM. If the examiner cannot be reached by telephone, he can be reached through the following email address: david.tardif@uspto.gov
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone and email are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Thomas Pham can be reached on (571)272-3689. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
DAVID TARDIF
Examiner
Art Unit 2876
/DAVID TARDIF/
Examiner, Art Unit 2876
david.tardif@uspto.gov
/MATTHEW MIKELS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2876
Prosecution Insights