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 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.
Introduction
Claims 1-11 and 13-21 are pending and have been examined in this Office Action. Claim 12 has been cancelled and claim 21 has been added since the last Office Action.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 10/22/2025 has been entered.
Examiner’s Note
Examiner has cited particular paragraphs / columns and line numbers or figures in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. Applicant is reminded that the Examiner is entitled to give the broadest reasonable interpretation to the language of the claims. Furthermore, the Examiner is not limited to Applicants' definition which is not specifically set forth in the disclosure.
Claim Objections
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 13 is dependent on claim 12, which is cancelled. It is interpreted that claim 13 is dependent on claim 1. Appropriate correction is 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 18-21 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.
Claims 18 and 21 recite a minimum charge level that, once reached, continuing to charge the vehicle will occur at a charging rate lower than a charging rate when below a maximum charge level. However, the minimum charge level is less than the maximum charge level, so it is indefinite how the charging rate at the minimum charge level, which is less than the maximum charge level, can be different than when less than the maximum charge level. Further, “the determined threshold maximum charge level” lack antecedent basis. These claims are interpreted to recite similar features as claim 1, as stated on page 9 of the arguments filed 10/22/2025, i.e., controlling the autonomous vehicle to maneuver to a charger when below a threshold minimum charge level and charging the vehicle at or below the threshold maximum charge level, wherein charging above the maximum charge level is at a lower charging rate.
Claim(s) 19 and 20 is/are rejected because it/they depend(s) from claim 18 and fail(s) to cure the deficiencies above.
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) 1, 4-9, 11, 13, 15, 18, and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication 2018/0307226 to Chase et al. in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2019/0126766 to Taguchi et al.
As per claim 1, Chase discloses a method (Chase; At least paragraph(s) 2) comprising:
determining, by one or more processors of one or more server computing devices, that a charge status of a vehicle has reached a threshold minimum charge level (Chase; At least paragraph(s) 33 and 92);
in response to the determining, controlling, by the one or more processors, an autonomous driving computing system of the vehicle to maneuver to a location of a charger (Chase; At least paragraph(s) 92);
determining, by the one or more processors, a threshold maximum charge level for the vehicle (Chase; At least paragraph(s) 101); and
Chase does not explicitly disclose that once reached, continuing to charge the vehicle will occur at a charging rate that is lower than a charging rate when charging at or below the determined threshold maximum charge level;
However, the above feature(s) are taught by Taguchi (Taguchi; At least paragraph(s) 52 and figure 3; “it is necessary to lower a charging current when charged state of the battery gets closer to full charge. Thus, a charging speed will decrease when the charging level exceeds a threshold (α in FIG. 3)”). At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have incorporated the teachings of Taguchi into the invention of Chase with a reasonable expectation of success with the motivation of using a known technique to improve a similar device in the same way with predictable results. Reducing the rate of charging and the amount of charge at the battery’s full charge will reduce deterioration of the battery and increase its useful life, as discussed in paragraph(s) 52 and 53).
controlling, by the one or more processors, the vehicle to perform charging at the charger at or below the determined threshold maximum charge level (Chase; At least paragraph(s) 93 and 101).
As per claim 4, Chase discloses further comprising: receiving, by the one or more processors, vehicle data including a vehicle charge status and a vehicle charge capacity (Chase; At least paragraph(s) 33, 88, and 90).
As per claim 5, Chase discloses further comprising: receiving, by the one or more processors, charger data for each charger of a plurality of chargers configured to charge vehicles of a fleet of rechargeable vehicles (Chase; At least paragraph(s) 88).
As per claim 6, Chase discloses further comprising: determining, by the one or more processors based on the vehicle data and the charger data, one charger of the plurality of chargers to perform charging (Chase; At least paragraph(s) 92).
As per claim 7, Chase discloses wherein areas serviced by the fleet of rechargeable vehicles are segmented into a plurality of zones, the method further comprising limiting a number of vehicles of the fleet using one of the chargers in a particular zone at a given time in order to avoid exceeding a threshold number of vehicles using the one charger (Chase; At least paragraph(s) 92 and 104).
As per claim 8, Chase discloses further comprising: automatically adjusting, by the one or more processors, target charging levels of the vehicles of the fleet of rechargeable vehicles in response to a real-time change in demand for services provided by the fleet of rechargeable vehicles (Chase; At least paragraph(s) 90 and 91).
As per claim 9, Chase discloses wherein the charger data indicates at least one of a type of each charger, a location of each charger, a current availability of each charger or a charger speed of each charger (Chase; At least paragraph(s) 88).
As per claim 11, Chase discloses further comprising: receiving, by the one or more processors, demand data including at least one of current trip demand or predicted future trip demand for trips by the vehicles of the fleet (Chase; At least paragraph(s) 101).
As per claim 13, Chase discloses further comprising: determining, by the one or more processors, an extent to recharge the vehicle based on whether the vehicle charge status exceeds a threshold maximum level; and adjusting, by the one or more processors, the threshold maximum level when the current trip demand is above a threshold peak demand, wherein determining the extent to recharge the vehicle is further based on whether the vehicle charge status exceeds the adjusted threshold maximum level (Chase; At least paragraph(s) 90 and 101; the threshold maximum level is adjusted when the current trip demand for the vehicle is above a threshold and is at least enough to accommodate the request).
As per claim 15, Chase discloses further comprising: determining an energy consumption rate of the vehicle; and predicting a future vehicle charge status after a trip based on the energy consumption rate, wherein controlling the autonomous driving computing system of the vehicle includes controlling the autonomous driving computing system of the vehicle to recharge after the trip when the predicted future vehicle charge status after the trip is below a threshold minimum level (Chase; At least paragraph(s) 88 and 90).
As per claims 18 and 21, Chase discloses a system and computer-readable medium (Chase; At least paragraph(s) 33) for performing the method of claim 1. Therefore, claims 18 and 21 are rejected using the same citations and reasoning as applied to 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) 2, 3, 19, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chase, in view of Taguchi as applied to claims 1 and 18, and in further view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2016/0250944 to Christ et al.
As per claims 2 and 19, Chase discloses charging vehicle to a maximum charge level, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the determined threshold maximum charge level for the vehicle is 80% of vehicle charge capacity.
However, the above feature(s) are taught by Christ (Christ; At least paragraph(s) 34). At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have incorporated the teachings of Christ into the invention of Chase with a reasonable expectation of success with the motivation of simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results. Charging batteries to 80% of their maximum capacity extends the life of the battery, which would reduce overall operating costs. The maximum level to charge the vehicle to would be a design choice based on multiple factors.
As per claims 3 and 20, Chase does not explicitly disclose wherein the vehicle stops performing the charging when the determined threshold maximum charge level for the vehicle is reached.
However, the above feature(s) are taught by Christ (Christ; At least paragraph(s) 34). At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have incorporated the teachings of Christ into the invention of Chase with a reasonable expectation of success with the motivation of using a known technique to improve a similar device in the same way with predictable results. Charging batteries to a threshold below the maximum charge extends the life of the battery and reduces overall operating costs. Choosing a threshold that is the maximum under the point at which resistance in the battery increases would provide the furthest range for the vehicle while reducing deterioration of the battery.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 10 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chase, in view of Taguchi as applied to claims 1 and 18, and in further view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2015/0039391 to Hershkovitz et al.
As per claim 10, Chase is directed to maximizing efficiency of a vehicle and charging network, but does not explicitly disclose further comprising: predicting, by the one or more processors, a future time when the determined one charger will become available based on at least one of a type of the determined one charger or the charger speed.
However, the above feature(s) are taught by Hershkovitz (Hershkovitz; At least paragraph(s) 7-12 and 69). At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have incorporated the teachings of Hershkovitz into the invention of Chase with a reasonable expectation of success with the motivation of using a known technique to improve a similar device in the same way with predictable results. Predicting the demand and load on a service station, including individual chargers, would allow better efficiency and utilization of the charging network and vehicles. For example, if a specific charger near the end of a vehicle route is unavailable now, but will be available when the vehicle arrives, then the vehicle can be planned to charge at the charger to improve overall efficiency, similar to that discussed in at least these paragraph(s), especially 8 and 9, of Hershkovitz.
As per claim 14, Chase is directed to maximizing efficiency of a vehicle and charging network, but does not explicitly disclose further comprising: predicting a likelihood that an energy cost for recharging the vehicle at a first time will be lower than an energy cost for recharging the vehicle at a second time, wherein each vehicle of the fleet of vehicles is controlled to perform charging based on the likelihood that the energy cost for recharging the vehicle at the first time will be lower than the energy cost for recharging the vehicle at the second time.
However, the above feature(s) are taught by Hershkovitz (Hershkovitz; At least paragraph(s) 191-193). At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have incorporated the teachings of Hershkovitz into the invention of Chase with a reasonable expectation of success with the motivation of using a known technique to improve a similar device in the same way with predictable results. Charging vehicles based on predicted energy costs would reduce the overall cost of the fleet and/or network.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chase, in view of Taguchi as applied to claims 1 and 18, and in further view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2011/0246252 to Uesugi.
As per claim 16, Chase is directed to maximizing efficiency of a vehicle and charging network, including vehicle ranges (Chase; At least paragraph(s) 88 and 90; determining range and sufficient charge requires knowing the consumption rate), but does not explicitly disclose wherein the energy consumption rate for the trip is determined further based on weather conditions.
However, the above feature(s) are taught by Uesugi (Uesugi; At least paragraph(s) 12, 21, 22, 171, and 172). At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have incorporated the teachings of Uesugi into the invention of Chase with a reasonable expectation of success with the motivation of using a known technique to improve a similar device in the same way with predictable results. Determining the energy consumption rate based on the weather would provide more accurate information of the vehicle and would lead to better efficiency in operation of the vehicle/charger network, as discussed in at least these paragraph(s) of Uesugi.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chase, in view of Taguchi and Uesugi as applied to claim 16, and in further view of Hershkovitz.
As per claim 17, Chase is directed to maximizing efficiency of a vehicle and charging network, but does not explicitly disclose further comprising: determining, by the one or more processors, one or more time windows with peak energy costs during which recharging of the vehicle is not performed.
However, the above feature(s) are taught by Hershkovitz (Hershkovitz; At least paragraph(s) 191-193). At the time of filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have incorporated the teachings of Hershkovitz into the invention of Chase with a reasonable expectation of success with the motivation of using a known technique to improve a similar device in the same way with predictable results. Nor charging during peak energy costs would reduce the overall cost of the network.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection of claim(s) 1 and 18, and by dependency claims 2-11, 13-17, and 19, have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892. The prior art shows the state of the art.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID P MERLINO whose telephone number is (571)272-8362. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 5:30am-3:00pm F 5:30-9:00 am ET.
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, Erin Bishop can be reached at 571-270-3713. 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.
/David P. Merlino/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3665