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 final action is in response to Applicant’s filing dated October 30, 2025. Claims 1 and 3-8 are currently pending and have been considered, as provided in more detail below. Claim 2 has been cancelled.
*Examiner Note: Claim language is bolded. Cited References and Applicant’s arguments are italicized. Examiner interpretations are preceded with an asterisk *.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 10/30/25 have been considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding amended claim 1, Applicant asserts that Sun does not disclose checking "a remaining amount of energy in the first moving object at a conflict occurrence time predicted from the operation plan" or changing the period of stay based on such energy determination. Sun paragraph [0064] states "upcoming reserved charging session is greater than (or equal to) the minimum session duration indicated by the minimum session duration parameter." This passage discusses comparing time periods - specifically whether the time until an upcoming session exceeds a minimum duration threshold. This is fundamentally different from checking "a remaining amount of energy in the first moving object" as recited in claim 1. Sun paragraph [0125] similarly discusses "determining eligibility for the ad hoc charging session based on the comparison between the ad hoc time period and the scheduled time period" and specifically "when the time until the upcoming reserved charging session is sufficiently large." Again, Sun is comparing time differences to determine eligibility, not evaluating "a remaining amount of energy in the first moving object at a conflict occurrence time predicted from the operation plan."
The Examiner respectfully does not agree because Applicant improperly differentiates between charging time and remaining energy. However, Sun’s adjustment of charging time IS necessarily affecting remaining energy. The issue is whether Sun, when viewed in combination with Bostick would have made it obvious to adjust charging dwell time based on predicted remaining energy at a future conflict time. It is well known that charging time directly determines delivered energy and delivered energy directly determines remaining energy. Therefore, when Sun adjusts or limits charging time, it is necessarily controlling energy delivered. A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that Sun’s time-based scheduling decisions naturally reflect judgements about whether a vehicle will have sufficient remaining energy for its intended operation. The Examiner’s position is that a decision to shorten or allow a charging session is, as a matter of physics and engineering, a decision about how much energy the vehicle will have after charging. In this connection, Sun’s teachings about modifying charging time clearly teach consideration of whether further charging is needed, i.e., whether remaining energy is sufficient, as broadly as recited in the amendments to claim 1.
On page 9 of the remarks, Applicant asserts that Bostick treats queuing as normal operation rather than as a "conflict" requiring operation plan changes to avoid. Neither Bostick nor Sun discloses the claimed approach of proactively changing operation plans to prevent conflicts based on predicted energy levels. The Examiner respectfully disagrees because Bostick explicitly teaches predicting future remaining energy for each vehicle as part of server-based planning. Accordingly, combining Bostick’s energy prediction with Sun’s flexible period of stay modification would have reasonably suggested evaluating whether predicted remaining energy at the conflict time exceeds a threshold before changing the stay. Sun provides the essential teaching the charging period of stay is not fixed and may be modified to avoid conflicts and improve resource utilization. Therefore, Applicant’s arguments are not considered to be persuasive and the rejection under 35 USC 103 is maintained as outlined below.
Response to Amendment
Regarding the rejection under 35 USC 101, Applicant has amended the claims to overcome the rejection. The rejection under 35 USC 101 has been withdrawn.
Regarding the rejections under 35 USC 103, amendments made to the claims fail to overcome the prior art. The rejection under 35 USC 103 is maintained as outlined below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claims 1, 3-5 and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bostick (US 2018/0113464) in view of Sun (US 2021/0213848).
Regarding claim 1, Bostick discloses A server (Fig. 1, 104 &106 and see at least para. [0023]
of Bostick which discloses “server 104 and server 106 may provide, for example, a set of services”) that manages a plurality of moving objects (Fig. 1, 110/112/114 and see at least para. [0024] of Bostick which discloses “Clients 110, 112, and 114 represent autonomous vehicles that include onboard data processing systems“ and see at least para. [0023] of Bostick which discloses “server 104 and server 106 may provide, for example, a set of services that manage a plurality of registered autonomous vehicles needing to replenish an onboard energy source within a defined geographic area”, *Examiner interprets the plurality of registered autonomous vehicles to be the claimed plurality of moving objects since para. [0117] of Applicant’s specification describes “a plurality of moving objects (e.g., vehicles 1)”), the server comprising a processor (Fig. 2, 204 and see at least para. [0030] of Bostick which discloses “Processor unit 204 serves to execute instructions for software applications and programs”) configured to:
determine an operation plan for each of the moving objects (see at least para. [0039] of Bostick which discloses “Autonomous vehicle energy manager 218 utilizes travel data 262 to determine travel routes 268, travel destinations 270, and passenger-defined travel destination time constraints 272 for each respective registered autonomous vehicle in the list”, *Examiner interprets the energy manager 218 using travel data to determine travel routes to be the formation of an operation plan since para. [0080] of Applicant’s specification describes the operation plan to include information indicating a route for a vehicle to travel), and instruct each of the moving objects to operate according to the determined operation plan (see at least para. [0042] of Bostick which discloses “Autonomous vehicle energy manager 218 may utilizes locations 274 to route registered autonomous vehicles in need of energy replenishment to selected energy stations“ and see at least para. [0032] of Bostick which discloses “Autonomous vehicle energy manager 218 … directs the registered autonomous vehicles in need of energy replenishment to one or more selected energy stations”, *Examiner interprets the routing and directing of the vehicles/moving object to be the claimed instruction to operate according to the operation plan established by the energy manger 218), the operation plan including a plan regarding energy replenishment for operation (see at least para. [0032] of Bostick which discloses “Autonomous vehicle energy manager 218 monitors and manages a plurality of registered autonomous vehicles, which are in need of replenishing an onboard energy source, within a defined geographic area and directs the registered autonomous vehicles in need of energy replenishment to one or more selected energy stations”),
determine based on the operation plan whether a conflict is going to occur (see at least para. [0066] of Bostick which discloses “if the electric vehicle needs to wait at an energy replenishment station in a queue while other electric vehicles are recharging ahead of the electric vehicle”, *Examiner interprets this consideration of a wait in queue to be a determination based on the operation plan of whether a conflict will occur since a wait is necessary if other vehicles are charging and no replenish units are available), the conflict being two or more of the moving objects being replenished with energy (see at least para. [0066] of Bostick which discloses a conflict in which “an electric vehicle needs to be recharged or if the electric vehicle needs to wait at an energy replenishment station in a queue while other electric vehicles are recharging ahead of the electric vehicle, which could have an impact on the passenger's desired travel destination arrive time”, *Examiner interprets this to also be a conflict since the waiting could impact the moving object’s travel time) at a same location (see at least para. [0071] of Bostick which discloses “calculating a ranking of the autonomous vehicle in need of energy replenishment as compared to other autonomous vehicles needing energy replenishment in the same geographic area or zone”, *Examiner interprets the same geographic area or zone to be the same location) at a same timing (see at least para. [0066] of Bostick which discloses “the electric vehicle needs to wait at an energy replenishment station in a queue while other electric vehicles are recharging”, *Examiner interprets that since the vehicle will need to wait in a queue, then this is at the same timing),
wherein the operation plan (see at least para. [0039] of Bostick which discloses “Autonomous vehicle energy manager 218 utilizes travel data 262 to determine travel routes 268, travel destinations 270, and passenger-defined travel destination time constraints 272 for each respective registered autonomous vehicle in the list”, *Examiner interprets the energy manager 218 using travel data to determine travel routes to be the formation of an operation plan) includes an energy replenishment point (Fig. 2, 274 and see at least para. [0042] of Bostick which discloses a “list of energy stations 230 includes locations 274”, *Examiner interprets the stations 230 and locations 274 to be the energy replenishment points) and a period of stay at the energy replenishment point (see at least para. [0026] of Bostick which discloses “energy replenishment stations with locations and available queue times” and see at least para. [0043] of Bostick which discloses “vehicle energy manager 218 calculates estimated times to replenish energy 232. Estimated times to replenish energy 232 represent the time required by respective autonomous vehicles to replenish energy in order to reach desired travel destinations. Autonomous vehicle energy manager 218 may utilize estimated times to replenish energy 232 to determine scheduling of autonomous vehicles at energy stations within the particular geographic area”), and
when determination is made based on the operation plan (see at least para. [0137] of Sun which discloses “a user conflict. In the alternative solution provided by this variation, the second vehicle (V2) would be able to occupy a second EVSE (triangle 2), thereby postponing conflict to a situation in which a a third vehicle (V3) arrives. In this situation, the first vehicle may leave prior to arrival of the third vehicle, and as such, no conflict would occur. Expanding this further to multiple vehicles/EVSEs, as shown in FIGS. 10C and 10D, such a solution prevents a checkerboard scheduling problem associated with individual calendars corresponding to each EVSE at the site”, *Examiner interprets the occupation of a second EVSE which prevents a conflict to be the change in operation plan such that a conflict is avoided).
Bostick may not explicitly disclose and when determination is made that the conflict is
going to occur, change the operation plan of at least one of the conflicting moving objects in such a manner that the conflict is avoided, and when determination is made based on the operation plan that a preceding first moving object and a following second moving object are going to conflict at the energy replenishment point, and a remaining amount of energy in the first moving object at a conflict occurrence time predicted from the operation plan is greater than a reference amount, change the period of stay of the first moving object at the energy replenishment point, before instructing each of the moving objects to operate, in such a manner that the first moving object departs from the energy replenishment point at the conflict occurrence time.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Sun discloses and when determination is made
that the conflict is going to occur, change the operation plan of at least one of the conflicting moving objects in such a manner that the conflict is avoided (see at least para. [0137] of Sun which discloses “a user conflict. In the alternative solution provided by this variation, the second vehicle (V2) would be able to occupy a second EVSE (triangle 2), thereby postponing conflict to a situation in which a a third vehicle (V3) arrives. In this situation, the first vehicle may leave prior to arrival of the third vehicle, and as such, no conflict would occur. Expanding this further to multiple vehicles/EVSEs, as shown in FIGS. 10C and 10D, such a solution prevents a checkerboard scheduling problem associated with individual calendars corresponding to each EVSE at the site”, *Examiner interprets the occupation of a second EVSE which prevents a conflict to be the change in operation plan such that a conflict is avoided).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date
of the claimed invention to modify the server and processor of Bostick to change the operation plan of at least one of the conflicting moving objects in such a manner that the conflict is avoided as taught in Sun with a reasonable expectation of success in order to effectively improve and increase the operation efficiency at which moving objects may have their energy sources replenished. See para. [0135] and [0137] of Sun for motivation.
Sun further discloses when determination is made based on the operation plan that a
preceding first moving object (Fig. 3, V1 and see at least para. [0137] of Sun which discloses “vehicle 1 (V1)”) and a following second moving object (Fig. 3, V2 and see at least para. [0137] of Sun which discloses “a second vehicle (V2)”) are going to conflict at the energy replenishment point, and a remaining amount of energy in the first moving object at a conflict occurrence time (see at least para. [0137] of sun which discloses “a first EVSE (triangle 1) occupied by vehicle 1 (V1), when a second vehicle (V2) arrives with a fixed reservation at the first EVSE, the second vehicle (V2) would have to wait for the first EVSE, thereby creating a user conflict”) predicted from the operation plan is greater than a reference amount (see at least para. [0064] of Sun which discloses “upcoming reserved charging session is greater than (or equal to) the minimum session duration indicated by the minimum session duration parameter”), change the period of stay of the first moving object at the energy replenishment point (see at least para. [0125] of Sun which discloses “determining eligibility for the ad hoc charging session based on the comparison between the ad hoc time period and the scheduled time period can include: in response to the length of time difference exceeding a second length of time difference threshold (e.g., when the time until the upcoming reserved charging session is sufficiently large, such as greater than the maximum session duration for the EVSE; such as greater than an ad hoc time period corresponding to a predicted ad hoc charging session duration indicated by a user input describing an end time and/or desired charging session duration for the ad hoc charging session; etc.), determining that a user (e.g., associated with second electric vehicle; etc.) and/or other suitable entity is eligible for the ad hoc charging session for a duration specified by a maximum session duration parameter associated with the EVSE”), before instructing each of the moving objects to operate, in such a manner that the first moving object departs from the energy replenishment point at the conflict occurrence time (see at least para. [0022] of Sun which discloses “the adjusted throttling amount can change in real time based upon traffic, based upon how many chargers are in use, and/or based upon other suitable factors. For instance, in the example above, for a first vehicle charging at the first EVSE and a second vehicle charging at the second EVSE, the first car will receive 7 kW*41% throttling amount=2.8 kW, and the second car will receive 10 kW*41% throttling amount=4.1 kW. Then, if the first vehicle terminates charging at the first EVSE but the second vehicle continues charging at the second EVSE, the second vehicle will receive 7 kW due to the input constraint of 7 kW”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date
of the claimed invention to further modify the server and processor of Bostick, as modified by Sun, to include when determination is made based on the operation plan that a preceding first moving object and a following second moving object are going to conflict at the energy replenishment point, and a remaining amount of energy in the first moving object at a conflict occurrence time predicted from the operation plan is greater than a reference amount, change the period of stay of the first moving object at the energy replenishment point, before instructing each of the moving objects to operate, in such a manner that the first moving object departs from the energy replenishment point at the conflict occurrence time, as further taught by Sun with a reasonable expectation of success in order to facilitate more effectively manage potential conflicts between first and second moving objects at the energy replenishment point. See para. [0137] of Sun for motivation.
Regarding claim 3, Bostick, as modified by Sun, discloses wherein the processor (Fig. 2, 204
and see at least para. [0030] of Bostick which discloses “Processor unit 204 serves to execute instructions for software applications and programs”) is configured to, when, before instructing each of the moving objects to operate, determination is made based on the operation plan that the first moving object and the second moving object are going to conflict at the energy replenishment point (see at least para. [0066] of Bostick which discloses “if the electric vehicle needs to wait at an energy replenishment station in a queue while other electric vehicles are recharging ahead of the electric vehicle”, *Examiner interprets this consideration of a wait in queue to be a determination based on the operation plan of whether a conflict will occur since a wait is necessary if other vehicles are charging and no replenish units are available), and the remaining amount of energy in the first moving object at the conflict occurrence time is less than the reference amount (see at least para. [0106] of Sun which discloses “ the remaining number of EVSEs are to be made available on a first come first served basis (e.g., y number of total EVSEs minus x number of EVSEs allotted to serving reserved charging sessions; etc.)”, *Examiner interprets that once all the EVSEs are used since it is on a first come first serve basis, then the remaining amount of energy will be less than the reference amount), change the period of stay of the first moving object at the energy replenishment point in such a manner that the first moving object departs from the energy replenishment point at a timing when the remaining amount of energy in the first moving object reaches the reference amount (see at least para. [0018] of Sun which discloses “determining a check in at the EVSE for the reserved charging session (e.g., after the ad hoc charging session for the second electric vehicle; etc.); and/or causing the EVSE to charge the first electric vehicle during the scheduled time period based on the integration with the EVSE (e.g., in response to determining the check in of the first electric vehicle at the EVSE, etc.)”, *Examiner interprets that since the EVSE will charge the first moving object, it will depart from the energy replenish point once it reaches a specific reference amount which will be the completion of the charging session).
Regarding claim 4, Bostick, as modified by Sun discloses wherein the processor (Fig. 2, 204
and see at least para. [0030] of Bostick which discloses “Processor unit 204 serves to execute instructions for software applications and programs”) is configured to change an energy replenishment point (Fig. 2, 274 and see at least para. [0042] of Bostick which discloses a “list of energy stations 230 includes locations 274”, *Examiner interprets the stations 230 and locations 274 to be the energy replenishment points) in the operation plan of at least one of the conflicting moving objects in such a manner that the conflict is avoided (see at least para. [0042] of Bostick which discloses “Autonomous vehicle energy manager 218 utilizes list of energy stations 230 to identify each particular energy station within the particular geographic area where registered autonomous vehicles may replenish energy … list of energy stations 230 includes locations 274 and queue times 276. Locations 274 represent specific geographic locations of each energy station in the list. Autonomous vehicle energy manager 218 may utilizes locations 274 to route registered autonomous vehicles in need of energy replenishment to selected energy stations. Queue times 276 represent available time slots for performing energy replenishment events. Autonomous vehicle energy manager 218 may utilizes queue times 276 to schedule registered autonomous vehicles in need of energy replenishment at one or more selected energy stations based on rankings 266 of each respective registered autonomous vehicle needing energy replenishment”, *Examiner interprets that energy replenish points will be changed based on the identification of the available stations so that a wait conflict may be avoided).
Regarding claim 5, Bostick, as modified by Sun discloses wherein the processor (Fig. 2, 204
and see at least para. [0030] of Bostick which discloses “Processor unit 204 serves to execute instructions for software applications and programs”) is configured to, when there is a plurality of the operation plans (see at least para. [0039] of Bostick which discloses “Autonomous vehicle energy manage 218 utilizes travel data 262 to determine travel routes 268, travel destinations 270, and passenger-defined travel destination time constraints 272 for each respective registered autonomous vehicle in the list”, *Examiner interprets the energy manager 218 using travel data to determine travel routes to be the formation of an operation plans) that is able to avoid the conflict, select the operation plan (see at least para. [0026] of Sun which discloses “Selecting the subset of EVSEs for prioritized charging can be based upon distribution characteristics of the EVSEs (e.g., in relation to DC fast charging capability, in relation to other charging capabilities), location characteristics of the EVSEs (e.g., identification of geographic location characteristics of the EVSEs, in relation to remoteness, in relation to proximity to commercial areas, in relation to proximity to rural areas, in relation to proximity to residential areas, etc.), usage data for the EVSEs (e.g., prioritizing charging through heavily used EVSEs, in order to improve traffic flow, prioritizing charging through less-heavily-used EVSEs, in order to equalize maintenance requirements across the set of EVSEs), EVSE state characteristics (e.g., prioritizing charging through properly-operating EVSEs, etc.), EVSE connectivity states (e.g., prioritizing charging through EVSEs that are connected to a cloud-based platform, etc.), and/or other suitable characteristics”) with a lowest risk of running out of energy (see at least para. [0064] of Sun which discloses “to select reservation slots based on availability”) out of the operation plans (see at least para. [0137] of Sun which discloses “a user conflict. In the alternative solution provided by this variation, the second vehicle (V2) would be able to occupy a second EVSE (triangle 2), thereby postponing conflict to a situation in which a a third vehicle (V3) arrives. In this situation, the first vehicle may leave prior to arrival of the third vehicle, and as such, no conflict would occur. Expanding this further to multiple vehicles/EVSEs, as shown in FIGS. 10C and 10D, such a solution prevents a checkerboard scheduling problem associated with individual calendars corresponding to each EVSE at the site”, *Examiner interprets the occupation of a second EVSE which prevents a conflict to be the change in operation plan such that a conflict is avoided and this is evidence of the option to select a different operation plan with a lower risk of running out of energy since there is no conflict and charging can occur).
Regarding claim 7, Bostick, as modified by Sun, discloses An operation system (Fig. 1, 100
and see at least para. [0022] of Bostick which discloses “Network data processing system 100 is a network of computers, data processing systems, and other devices in which the illustrative embodiments may be implemented. Network data processing system 100 contains network 102, which is the medium used to provide communications links between the computers, data processing systems, and the other devices connected together within network data processing system 100”, *Examiner interprets processing system 100 to be the operation system), comprising: the server (Fig. 1, 104 &106 and see at least para. [0023] of Bostick which discloses “server 104 and server 106 may provide, for example, a set of services”) according to claim 1; and the moving objects configured to receive an instruction from the server (see at least para. [0025] of Bostick which discloses “server 104 and server 106 also may provide information, such as boot files, operating system images, software applications, maps, routing data, and notifications to clients 110, 112, and 114” and see at least para. [0029] of Bostick which discloses a “server 104 in FIG. 1, in which computer readable program code or program instructions implementing processes of illustrative embodiments may be located”).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Bostick, in view of Sun, discloses wherein the moving
objects (Fig. 1, 110/112/114 and see at least para. [0024] of Bostick which discloses “Clients 110, 112, and 114 represent autonomous vehicles that include onboard data processing systems“ and see at least para. [0023] of Bostick which discloses “server 104 and server 106 may provide, for example, a set of services that manage a plurality of registered autonomous vehicles needing to replenish an onboard energy source within a defined geographic area”, *Examiner interprets the plurality of registered autonomous vehicles to be the claimed plurality of moving objects since para. [0117] of Applicant’s specification describes “a plurality of moving objects (e.g., vehicles 1)” include a third moving object, each of the third moving object is an autonomous vehicle (see at least para. [0024] of Bostick which discloses “Clients 110, 112, and 114 represent autonomous vehicles that include onboard data processing systems, which are registered clients of the autonomous vehicle energy management services”.
Bostick, further discloses, in another embodiment, a third moving object and a fourth
moving object (Fig. 7, 712 and 714 and see at least para. [0088] of Bostick which discloses “autonomous vehicles 708, 710, and 712 to energy station 702. In addition, the server assigns registered autonomous vehicles 714, 716, and 718”, *Examiner interprets vehicle 712 and vehicle 714 to be the third moving object and fourth moving object, respectively), each of the third moving object and the fourth moving object is an autonomous vehicle (see at least para. [0088] of Bostick which discloses “autonomous vehicles 708, 710, and 712 to energy station 702. In addition, the server assigns registered autonomous vehicles 714, 716, and 718”), and the third moving object instructed to operate according to the operation plan including a schedule in which the third moving object and the fourth moving object are switched at an energy replenishment point (see at least para. [0096] of Bostick which discloses “If the computer determines that one or more autonomous vehicles of the plurality of registered autonomous vehicles in the defined geographic area need to replenish an onboard energy source in order to reach the desired travel destination in the travel data based on the current energy level data corresponding to the one or more autonomous vehicles, yes output of step 906, then the computer ranks the one or more autonomous vehicles needing to replenish the onboard energy source using ranking criteria to prioritize scheduling of the one or more autonomous vehicles at an energy station in the defined geographic area (step 908). The ranking criteria may be, for example, autonomous vehicle ranking criteria 226 with weighting factors 256”) is configured to depart from the energy replenishment point when the fourth moving object approaches the energy replenishment point while the third moving object is staying at the energy replenishment point (see at least para. [0087] of Bostick which discloses “A server, such as autonomous vehicle energy management server 504 in FIG. 5, automatically assigns registered autonomous vehicles needing to replenish an onboard energy source to a particular energy station so that no or minimal queue time exists based on vehicle ranking. The server proactively schedules a slot for each autonomous vehicle needing energy replenishment at the selected energy station and ensures there is no or minimum queue time”, *Examiner interprets the assigning of the vehicles to be equivalent to instructing the vehicles to operate based on an operation plan which includes the minimal queue time based on the ranking of the vehicle which will promote vehicle switching depending on the energy replenishment needs).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date
of the claimed invention to further adjust the system of Bostick, in view of Sun to include the operation system depicted in Fig. 1 of Bostick to include a third and fourth moving object as shown in the embodiment depicted in Fig. 7 of Bostick in order to effectively manage multiple objects as the need for energy replenishment arises.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bostick (US 2018/0113464) in view of Sun (US 2021/0213848) and further in view of Li (US 20200001727).
Regarding claim 6, Bostick, as modified by Sun discloses wherein the processor (Fig. 2, 204
and see at least para. [0030] of Bostick which discloses “Processor unit 204 serves to execute instructions for software applications and programs”) is configured to, when there is a plurality of the operation plans (see at least para. [0039] of Bostick which discloses “Autonomous vehicle energy manage 218 utilizes travel data 262 to determine travel routes 268, travel destinations 270, and passenger-defined travel destination time constraints 272 for each respective registered autonomous vehicle in the list”, *Examiner interprets the energy manager 218 using travel data to determine travel routes to be the formation of an operation plans) that is able to avoid the conflict (see at least para. [0137] of Sun which discloses “a user conflict. In the alternative solution provided by this variation, the second vehicle (V2) would be able to occupy a second EVSE (triangle 2), thereby postponing conflict to a situation in which a a third vehicle (V3) arrives. In this situation, the first vehicle may leave prior to arrival of the third vehicle, and as such, no conflict would occur. Expanding this further to multiple vehicles/EVSEs, as shown in FIGS. 10C and 10D, such a solution prevents a checkerboard scheduling problem associated with individual calendars corresponding to each EVSE at the site”, *Examiner interprets the occupation of a second EVSE which prevents a conflict to be the change in operation plan such that a conflict is avoided).
Bostick, as modified by Sun, may not explicitly disclose select the operation plan with
highest energy efficiency out of the operation plans.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Li discloses the ability to select the operation plan
with highest energy efficiency out of the operation plans (see at least para. [0441] of Li which discloses “the energy replenishment resource scheduling unit is further configured to actively schedule the energy replenishment resources according to historical usage data of the energy replenishment resources with the aim of maximizing the utilization efficiency of the energy replenishment resources within a specific area”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date
of the claimed invention to modify the processor of Bostick, as modified by Sun to include the ability to select the operation plan with highest energy efficiency out of the operation plans, as taught in Li with a reasonable expectation of success sin order to facilitate an increase in operation efficiency while reducing an increase in energy for operating the vehicles. See para. [0102], [0191] and [0441] of Li for motivation.
Additional Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Kojo (US 2021/0163041) discloses a system for calculating the total cruising distance of a plurality of shared vehicles, determining a necessity of traveling energy supply of the shared vehicle when the total cruising distance is equal to or less than a predetermined value, and instructing the supply instruction to the shared vehicle determined to be supplied on the basis of determining the necessity of the traveling energy supply of the shared vehicle. Gadh (US 9,026,347) discloses a central server, typically based on an Internet cloud, in communication with multiple charging stations, whereby the central server may intelligently coordinate the charging of many electric vehicles based on user charging preferences, according to an embodiment of the invention
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 DANA IVEY whose telephone number is (313)446-4896. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5:30 EST Monday-Friday.
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, Jelani Smith can be reached at 571-270-3969. 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.
/DANA D IVEY/Examiner, Art Unit 3662
/D.D.I/February 5, 2026
/JELANI A SMITH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3662