DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 1-10, 12-16 and 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 1 recites “so that the charging pile enables…”. Using the conjunction “so that” leads ambiguity as to whether the following function is a step or intended result. For the purpose of examination, Examiner is interpreting the function following “so that” as a step. The same applies to the functions following “so that” in claim 2 and 12.
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 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, 11-14 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ishibashi US PGPUB 2011/0144844.
Regarding claim 1, Ishibashi discloses a charging control method for vehicle plug and charge, the charging control method comprising:
determining, by a vehicle, that the vehicle has been physically connected to a charging pile [fig. 4, par. 141; 502 detects completion of connection] and
determining, by the vehicle, whether bidirectional authentication between the vehicle and the charging pile succeeds [par. 85 & 122; mutual authentication is performed and based on the success of the mutual authentication permission is granted or denied], and if the authentication succeeds, determining, by the vehicle, whether the charging pile has received authorization information sent by a charging operator of the charging pile, so that the charging pile enables a charging function upon receiving the authorization information [fig. 6; par. 122 & 150-153, the authentication process includes the charging apparatus 40 receiving authorization information (permission and security information) from management apparatus 60].
Regarding claim 2, Ishibashi discloses wherein the step of “determining, by the vehicle, whether bidirectional authentication between the vehicle and the charging pile succeeds” further comprises:
sending, by the vehicle and to the charging pile, a vehicle-end authentication request that carries vehicle digital certificate information, so that the charging pile verifies, upon receiving the vehicle-end authentication request, whether the vehicle digital certificate information is the same as pre-stored vehicle digital certificate information [fig. 1 & 8; pars. 123-124 & 174-177; both vehicle and charger sends certificates (ciphertexts/signatures) which are verified by comparing the certificates to stored (the value the vehicle/charger “holds”) values];
verifying, by the vehicle and upon receiving a pile-end authentication request that carries charging pile digital certificate information and is sent to the vehicle by the charging pile, whether the charging pile digital certificate information is the same as pre-stored charging pile digital certificate information [fig. 1 & 8; pars. 123-124 & 174-177; both vehicle and charger sends certificates (ciphertexts/signatures) which are verified by comparing the certificates to stored (the value the vehicle/charger “holds”) values] and
depending on whether the vehicle digital certificate information is the same as the pre-stored vehicle digital certificate information and whether the charging pile digital certificate information is the same as the pre-stored charging pile digital certificate information, selectively determining, by the vehicle, that the authentication succeeds or that the authentication fails [pars. 186, 189-190, 194, 196, 218, 220-223 & 225 ; if the digital signatures are accepted then the authentication passes].
Regarding claim 3, Ishibashi discloses wherein the step of “depending on whether the vehicle digital certificate information is the same as the pre-stored vehicle digital certificate information and whether the charging pile digital certificate information is the same as the pre-stored charging pile digital certificate information, selectively determining, by the vehicle, that the authentication succeeds or that the authentication fails” specifically comprises:
if the vehicle digital certificate information is the same as the pre-stored vehicle digital certificate information and the charging pile digital certificate information is the same as the pre-stored charging pile digital certificate information, determining, by the vehicle, that the authentication succeeds [fig. 1 & 8; pars. 123-124 & 174-177; both vehicle and charger sends certificates (ciphertexts/signatures) which are verified by comparing the certificates to stored (the value the vehicle/charger “holds”) values; pars. 186, 189-190, 194, 196, 218, 220-223 & 225 ; if the digital signatures are accepted then the authentication passes];
and/or if the vehicle digital certificate information is not the same as the pre-stored vehicle digital certificate information or the charging pile digital certificate information is not the same as the pre-stored charging pile digital certificate information, determining, by the vehicle, that the authentication fails [fig. 1 & 8; pars. 123-124 & 174-177; both vehicle and charger sends certificates (ciphertexts/signatures) which are verified by comparing the certificates to stored (the value the vehicle/charger “holds”) values; pars. 186, 189-190, 194, 196, 218, 220-223 & 225 ; if the digital signatures are accepted then the authentication passes].
Regarding claim 4, Ishibashi discloses wherein the vehicle digital certificate information and the charging pile digital certificate information each comprise signed filing certificate information capable of proving authenticity of the charging operator [pars. 174-177; mutual authentication, information signed by a random number; fig. 8].
Regarding claim 11, Ishibashi discloses a charging control method for vehicle plug and charge, the charging control method comprising:
determining, by a charging pile, that the charging pile has been physically connected to a vehicle [par. 84];
determining, by the charging pile, whether bidirectional authentication between the charging pile and the vehicle succeeds [par. 85 & 122; mutual authentication is performed and based on the success of the mutual authentication permission is granted or denied],
if the authentication succeeds, receiving, by the charging pile, authorization information sent by a charging operator of the charging pile; and enabling a charging function by the charging pile upon receiving the authorization information [fig. 6; par. 122 & 150-153, the authentication process includes the charging apparatus 40 receiving authorization information (permission and security information) from management apparatus 60].
Regarding claim 12, Ishibashi discloses wherein the step of “determining, by the charging pile, whether bidirectional authentication between the charging pile and the vehicle succeeds” further comprises:
sending, by the charging pile and to the vehicle, a pile-end authentication request that carries charging pile digital certificate information, so that the vehicle verifies, upon receiving the pile-end authentication request, whether the charging pile digital certificate information is the same as pre-stored charging pile digital certificate information [fig. 1 & 8; pars. 123-124 & 174-177; both vehicle and charger sends certificates (ciphertexts/signatures) which are verified by comparing the certificates to stored (the value the vehicle/charger “holds”) values];
verifying, by the charging pile and upon receiving a vehicle-end authentication request that carries vehicle digital certificate information and is sent to the charging pile by the vehicle, whether the vehicle digital certificate information is the same as pre-stored vehicle digital certificate information [fig. 1 & 8; pars. 123-124 & 174-177; both vehicle and charger sends certificates (ciphertexts/signatures) which are verified by comparing the certificates to stored (the value the vehicle/charger “holds”) values]; and
depending on whether the vehicle digital certificate information is the same as the pre-stored vehicle digital certificate information and whether the charging pile digital certificate information is the same as the pre-stored charging pile digital certificate information, selectively determining, by the charging pile, that the authentication succeeds or that the authentication fails [pars. 186, 189-190, 194, 196, 218, 220-223 & 225 ; if the digital signatures are accepted then the authentication passes].
Regarding claim 13, Ishibashi discloses wherein the step of “depending on whether the vehicle digital certificate information is the same as the pre-stored vehicle digital certificate information and whether the charging pile digital certificate information is the same as the pre-stored charging pile digital certificate information, selectively determining, by the charging pile, that the authentication succeeds or that the authentication fails” specifically comprises:
if the vehicle digital certificate information is the same as the pre-stored vehicle digital certificate information and the charging pile digital certificate information is the same as the pre-stored charging pile digital certificate information, determining, by the charging pile, that the authentication succeeds [fig. 1 & 8; pars. 123-124 & 174-177; both vehicle and charger sends certificates (ciphertexts/signatures) which are verified by comparing the certificates to stored (the value the vehicle/charger “holds”) values; pars. 186, 189-190, 194, 196, 218, 220-223 & 225 ; if the digital signatures are accepted then the authentication passes];
and/or if the vehicle digital certificate information is not the same as the pre-stored vehicle digital certificate information or the charging pile digital certificate information is not the same as the pre-stored charging pile digital certificate information, determining, by the charging pile, that the authentication fails [fig. 1 & 8; pars. 123-124 & 174-177; both vehicle and charger sends certificates (ciphertexts/signatures) which are verified by comparing the certificates to stored (the value the vehicle/charger “holds”) values; pars. 186, 189-190, 194, 196, 218, 220-223 & 225 ; if the digital signatures are accepted then the authentication passes].
Regarding claim 14, Ishibashi discloses wherein the vehicle digital certificate information and the charging pile digital certificate information each comprise signed filing certificate information capable of proving authenticity of the charging operator [fig. 1 & 8; pars. 123-124 & 174-177; both vehicle and charger sends certificates (ciphertexts/signatures) which are verified by comparing the certificates to stored (the value the vehicle/charger “holds”) values; pars. 186, 189-190, 194, 196, 218, 220-223 & 225 ; if the digital signatures are accepted then the authentication passes].
Regarding claim 20, Ishibashi discloses a vehicle, comprising a controller, wherein the controller is configured to be able to perform the charging control method for vehicle plug and charge according to claim 1 [fig. 1, 406].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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.
Claims 7, 10, 17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishibashi US PGPUB 2011/0144844.
Regarding claims 7 and 17, Ishibashi does not explicitly disclose wherein the user ID information comprises at least two of a charging account opened at the charging operator, user identity card information, information of binding payment, a license plate number of the vehicle, and a driving license; or the charging pile ID information comprises a serial number of the charging pile, a brand of the charging pile, and the charging operator of the charging pile.
However, Examiner takes Official Notice that it is well known in the electric vehicle charging arts to identify a vehicle or vehicle operator with license plate and account number and identify a charger via operator and number. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ishibashi to further include wherein the user ID information comprises at least two of a charging account opened at the charging operator, user identity card information, information of binding payment, a license plate number of the vehicle, and a driving license; or the charging pile ID information comprises a serial number of the charging pile, a brand of the charging pile, and the charging operator of the charging pile for the purpose of using simple and universal identifiers, and since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to apply a known technique to a known device (method, or product) which was ready for improvement in order to yield results predictable by one of ordinary skill the art. KSR International Co. v Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 127 S. Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Regarding claims 10 and 19, Ishibashi does not explicitly disclose wherein a communication between the charging pile and the vehicle is a power line carrier (PLC) communication with TLS encryption.
However, Examiner takes Official Notice that it is well known in the electric vehicle charging arts to use power line carrier (PLC) communication with TLS encryption. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ishibashi to further include wherein a communication between the charging pile and the vehicle is a power line carrier (PLC) communication with TLS encryption for the purpose of avoiding using a dedicated communication line and ensuring security of communication and since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to apply a known technique to a known device (method, or product) which was ready for improvement in order to yield results predictable by one of ordinary skill the art. KSR International Co. v Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 127 S. Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Claims 8 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishibashi US PGPUB 2011/0144844 in view of Sasaki et al. Canadian Patent 2527671.
Regarding claims 8 and 18, Ishibashi discloses the charging control method of claim 1 and disabling charging [par. 122].
Ishabashi does not explicitly disclose wherein the device has a display screen mounted thereon, and the method further comprises: when a determination result indicating an authentication failure is received, performing recording once; accumulating a number of authentication failures; and when the accumulated number is greater than or equal to a preset number, controlling the display screen to display function disabled.
However, Sasaki disclose a battery control system wherein the device has a display screen mounted thereon [fig. 2, 24], and the method further comprises: when a determination result indicating an authentication failure is received, performing recording once; accumulating a number of authentication failures; and when the accumulated number is greater than or equal to a preset number, controlling the display screen to display function disabled [fig. 7, step 26; pg. 24, lines 1-5 & pg. 26, lines 19-24].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ishibashi to further include wherein the device has a display screen mounted thereon, and the method further comprises: when a determination result indicating an authentication failure is received, performing recording once; accumulating a number of authentication failures; and when the accumulated number is greater than or equal to a preset number, controlling the display screen to display function disabled for the purpose of disabling access for repeat failures to increase security and since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to apply a known technique to a known device (method, or product) which was ready for improvement in order to yield results predictable by one of ordinary skill the art. KSR International Co. v Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 127 S. Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishibashi US PGPUB 2011/0144844 in view of Zheng et al. CH 106114251 A. (It is noted that the Zheng citations are taken from the machine translation, until a translation is obtained.)
Regarding claim 9, Ishibashi does not explicitly disclose wherein the charging control method further comprises: when the vehicle switches from being physically connected to the charging pile to being physically separated from the charging pile, calculating an electricity fee by the charging operator, and automatically deducting the electricity fee from the charging account.
However, Zheng discloses wherein the charging control method further comprises: when the vehicle switches from being physically connected to the charging pile to being physically separated from the charging pile, calculating an electricity fee by the charging operator, and automatically deducting the electricity fee from the charging account [pars. 102-104].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ishibashi to further include wherein the charging control method further comprises: when the vehicle switches from being physically connected to the charging pile to being physically separated from the charging pile, calculating an electricity fee by the charging operator, and automatically deducting the electricity fee from the charging account for the purpose of billing the user after the transaction is over, and since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to apply a known technique to a known device (method, or product) which was ready for improvement in order to yield results predictable by one of ordinary skill the art. KSR International Co. v Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 127 S. Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-6 and 15-16 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
With respect to claims 5 and 15, the following is an examiner's statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art fails to further teach or suggest “sending, by the charging operator and to a root certificate management platform, a filing certificate that carries user ID information and charging pile ID information; signing, by the root certificate management platform, the received filing certificate to obtain a signed filing certificate; and receiving, by the charging operator, the signed filing certificate sent by the root certificate management platform, so as to obtain the signed filing certificate information” in combination with all the other elements recited in claims 1 and 11, respectively.
With respect to claims 6 and 16, the following is an examiner's statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art fails to further teach or suggest “generating, by the charging operator, a first credential certificate from the recorded user ID information and charging pile ID information, and writing the signed filing certificate information into the first credential certificate; and sending the first credential certificate to an Internet of vehicles cloud platform by the charging operator, and writing, by the Internet of vehicles cloud platform, the first credential certificate into the vehicle, so as to obtain the vehicle digital certificate information; and/or the charging pile digital certificate information is generated by: generating, by the charging operator, a second credential certificate from the user ID information and the charging pile ID information, and writing the signed filing certificate information into the second credential certificate; and sending, by the charging operator, the second credential certificate to the charging pile for storage, so as to obtain the charging pile digital certificate information” in combination with all the other elements recited in claims 1 and 11, respectively.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Nagaoka et al. US PGPUB 2023/0402854 discloses an EV-charger authentication system using digital certificates.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID V HENZE whose telephone number is (571)272-3317. The examiner can normally be reached M to F, 9am to 7pm.
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, Julian Huffman can be reached at 571-272-2147. 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 V HENZE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2859
