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 .
Claims 1-26 are pending and examined in this office action.
Provisional Double patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969). A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-26 of the instant application are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent application 18/626196, in view of Hanchett (US PGPUB 2022/0258644). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the instant application are obvious over the claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent application 18/626196, in view of Hanchett. See MPEP 804. The side-by-side comparison below of claim 1 of the instant application and claim 1 of U.S. Patent application 18/626196 shows limitation by limitation matching between the conflicting claims (bold parts are the differences)
Instant Application
U.S. Patent application 18/626196
1. A charging station system comprising:
a first mobile device in communication with a host server, wherein the first mobile device is configured to receive software update data from the host server, and wherein the software update data is configured to update mobile devices;
a first charging station bank including:
one or more charging receptacles configured to receive corresponding mobile devices including the first mobile device, wherein the one or more charging receptacles are configured to charge and communicate with the corresponding mobile devices connected thereto;
a processor; and
a memory including the software update data obtained from the first mobile device, and instructions that when executed by the processor cause the first charging station bank to:
determine a software version of a second mobile device that is connected to the one or more charging receptacles; and
one of:
(i) provide the software update data to the second mobile device, wherein the second mobile device has an obsolete software version;
(ii) take no action with the second mobile device, wherein the second mobile device has a matching software version; or
(iii) replace the software update data with software update data from the second mobile device, wherein the second mobile device has a newer software version.
1. A charging station system comprising:
a host server configured to receive, store, and communicate software update data to communicatively connected charging station banks, wherein the software update data is configured to update mobile devices; and
a first charging station bank including:
one or more charging receptacles configured to receive corresponding mobile devices, wherein the one or more charging receptacles are configured to charge and communicate with the corresponding mobile devices connected thereto;
a network communication interface in communication with the host server;
a processor; and
a memory including the software update data and instructions that when executed by the processor cause the first charging station bank to:
determine a software version of the corresponding mobile devices that are connected to the one or more charging receptacles; and one of:
(i) provide the software update data to the corresponding mobile devices that have obsolete software versions;
(ii) take no action with the corresponding mobile devices that have matching software versions; or
(iii) replace the software update data with software update data from the corresponding mobile devices that have newer software versions.
Substantially all claimed elements of claim 1 in the instant application are contained in claim 1 of U.S. Patent application 18/626196. Claim 1 of Patent application 18/626196 does not explicitly teach a first mobile device in communication with a host server, wherein the first mobile device is configured to receive software update data from the host server, and wherein the software update data is configured to update mobile devices. However, Hanchett suggests the above limitations (paragraphs [0044][0045][0051][0150]; a vehicle (first mobile device) is able to communicate to a host server to receive data, the data includes firmware update data). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine U.S. Patent application 18/626196 and Hanchett to utilize a vehicle to transfer firmware update from a host server to a charging station, this allows remote charging station without network access to receive firmware updates (see Hanchett, paragraph [0002]). Therefore, the combination of U.S. Patent application 18/626196 and Hanchett teach the limitations of claim 1 of the instant patent application.
Similar claim mappings of the remaining claims (claims 2-26) to claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent application 18/626196 would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art but have been omitted for the sake of brevity.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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.
Claims 1-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, mathematical relationship or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Statutory Category: Claim 19 recites a method of updating mobile devices comprising: establishing a communicative connection between a first mobile device and a host server, wherein the first mobile device is configured to receive software update data from the host server, and wherein the software update data is configured to update mobile devices; transmitting the software update data from the first mobile device to a first charging station bank via one or more charging receptacles configured to charge connected corresponding mobile devices including the first mobile device, and wherein the one or more charging receptacles are configured to communicatively couple with the corresponding mobile devices connected thereto; storing in a memory of the first charging station bank the software update data transmitted by the first mobile device; and determining a software version of a second mobile device that is connected to the one or more charging receptacles; and based on said determining, performing one of: (i) provide the software update data to the second mobile device, wherein the second mobile device has an obsolete software version; (ii) take no action with the second mobile device, wherein the second mobile device has a matching software version; or
(iii) replace the software update data with software update data from the second mobile device, wherein the second mobile device has a newer software version.
Step 2A – Prong 1: Claim 19 recites: determining a software version of a second mobile device that is connected to the one or more charging receptacles; and based on said determining, performing one of: (ii) take no action with the second mobile device, wherein the second mobile device has a matching software version (a mental step of determination then taking no action). That is, nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from practically being performed mentally or using pen and paper. 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 process grouping of abstract idea. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under step 2A prong 1.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim 19 recites additional elements such as “establishing a communicative connection between a first mobile device and a host server, wherein the first mobile device is configured to receive software update data from the host server, and wherein the software update data is configured to update mobile devices”. Examiner would like to point out that with the broad reasonable interpretation, these elements amount to mere creating a network connection, which do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the mental process (insignificant additional element and a pre-solution activity). 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 insignificant additional elements under Step 2B.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim 19 recites additional elements such as “transmitting the software update data from the first mobile device to a first charging station bank via one or more charging receptacles configured to charge connected corresponding mobile devices including the first mobile device, and wherein the one or more charging receptacles are configured to communicatively couple with the corresponding mobile devices connected thereto”. Examiner would like to point out that with the broad reasonable interpretation, these elements amount to mere data transmission for a mental process, which do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the mental process (insignificant additional element and an extra-solution activity). 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 insignificant additional elements under Step 2B.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim 19 recites additional elements such as “storing in a memory of the first charging station bank the software update data transmitted by the first mobile device”. Examiner would like to point out that with the broad reasonable interpretation, these elements amount to mere data storage for a mental process, which do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the mental process (insignificant additional element and an extra-solution activity). 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 insignificant additional elements under Step 2B.
Dependent claims 20-26 do 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 dependent claims 20-26 recite more steps of a mental process (such as determining) which can be performed mentally or using pen and paper. The additional element of dependent claims 20-26 recite more extra-solution activities (installing, communicating), which do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the mental process (insignificant additional element). Therefore, these claims are not patent eligible.
Independent claim 1 (a system with a processor and memory to perform the method similar to claim 1) with dependent claims 2-9 are rejected under the similar rational as claims 19-26. The additional elements in the claim amounts to no more than generic hardware component with instructions to apply the exception, which cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept.
Independent claim 10 (a system with a processor and memory to perform the method similar to claim 1) with dependent claims 11-18 are rejected under the similar rational as claims 19-26. The additional elements in the claim amounts to no more than generic hardware component with instructions to apply the exception, which cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept.
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.
Claims 1-4, 7-8, 19-21, 24-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (US PGPUB 2023/0063433) hereinafter Li, in view of Hanchett (US PGPUB 2022/0258644).
Per claim 1, Li discloses a charging station system comprising: a first charging station bank including: one or more charging receptacles configured to receive corresponding mobile devices including the first mobile device, wherein the one or more charging receptacles are configured to charge and communicate with the corresponding mobile devices connected thereto (Figs. 1 and 2; paragraphs [0052]-[0055]; a charging station that can connect to vehicles (mobile devices) and provides charging and software update services); a processor; and a memory, and instructions that when executed by the processor cause the first charging station bank to: determine a software version of a second mobile device that is connected to the one or more charging receptacles; and (i) provide the software update data to the second mobile device, wherein the second mobile device has an obsolete software version (paragraphs [0164][0006][0007]; the charging system comprises a processor and memory; acquiring version information of a first software version in a vehicle (second mobile device) connected to the charging station; if the version information of the first software version is lower than version information of a second software version stored in the charging station (i.e. an obsolete version), the charging station updates the first software version to the second software version).
Li does not explicitly teach a first mobile device in communication with a host server, wherein the first mobile device is configured to receive software update data from the host server, and wherein the software update data is configured to update mobile devices and the charging station stores the software update data obtained from the first mobile device in its memory. However, Hanchett suggests the above limitations (paragraphs [0044][0045][0051][0150]; a vehicle (first mobile device) is able to communicate to a host server to receive data, the data includes firmware update data; the vehicle then can drive to a charging station and connect to the charging station, transfer the received firmware update data to a memory of the charging station). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Li and Hanchett to utilize a vehicle to transfer firmware update from a host server to a charging station, this allows remote charging station without network access to receive firmware updates (see Hanchett, paragraph [0002]).
Per claim 2, Li further suggests wherein the first charging station bank is further comprised of a network communication interface in communication with the host server (Fig. 2; paragraph [0111]; the server of charging station can connect to a cloud server to obtain software update).
Per claim 3, Li further suggests wherein the first charging station bank is further configured to obtain the software data directly from the host server via the network communication interface (Fig. 2; paragraph [0111]; the server of charging station can connect to a cloud server to obtain software update).
Per claim 4, Li further suggests wherein the first charging station bank is further configured to be part of a charging station network, wherein the first charging station bank is configured to communicate with other charging station banks that are part of the charging station network via the network communication interface (Fig. 2; paragraph [0058][0102]; a cloud server can manage multiple charging stations via a network; the charging stations also transfer batteries among themselves, it would have been obvious to allow the charging stations to communicate with each other for better coordination).
Per claim 7, Hanchett further suggests wherein the one or more charging receptacles are further configured to communicate with the corresponding mobile devices connected thereto via near field communication (NFC) (paragraphs [0033][0045]; NFC wireless communication).
Per claim 8, Hanchett further suggests wherein the first charging station bank is further configured to act as a wireless access point (paragraphs [0033][0045]; a first charging station can wirelessly communicate with other devices).
Claims 19, 21, 24-25 recite similar limitations as claims 1, 4, 7-8. Therefore, claims 19, 21, 24-25 are rejected under similar rationales as claims 1, 4, 7-8.
Per claim 20, Li further suggests installing the software update data by the second mobile device, wherein the second mobile device has an obsolete software version (paragraphs [0006][0007]; acquiring version information of a first software version in a vehicle (second mobile device) connected to the charging station; if the version information of the first software version is lower than version information of a second software version stored in the charging station (i.e. an obsolete version), the charging station transfer the second software version to the vehicle, the vehicle installs it).
Claims 5-6, 10-17, 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li, in view of Hanchett, in view of Shimizu et al. (US PGPUB 2015/0331688) hereinafter Shimizu.
Per claim 5, Li does not explicitly teach wherein the memory of the first charging station bank is further configured to include instructions that when executed by the processor cause the first charging station bank to: determine a version of stored software update data of a second charging station bank that is part of the charging station network; and one of: (i) provide the software update data to the second charging station bank, wherein the second charging station bank has an obsolete software version;. However, Shimizu suggests the above (claims 1-2; paragraphs [0024]; a plurality of control devices (i.e. charging stations) connected to a network; device A acquires firmware version information of device B, if device B’s firmware version is older (obsolete) than device A’s firmware version, device A provides the newer firmware to replace the old firmware on device B). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Li, Hanchett and Shimizu to utilize the peer-to-peer firmware update method to distribute firmware updates among the charging stations, which is a fast and efficient way to distribute firmware updates among a plurality of devices.
Per claim 6, Shimizu further suggests wherein the second charging station bank includes elements corresponding to the first charging station bank, and wherein a memory of the second charging station bank is configured to include instructions that when executed by a processor of the second charging station bank cause the second charging station bank to: determine a software version of a third mobile device that is connected to one or more charging receptacles of the second charging station bank; and one of: (i) provide the software update data to the third mobile device, wherein the third mobile device has an obsolete software version (claims 1-2; paragraphs [0024]; a plurality of control devices (i.e. charging stations) connected to a network, each control device stores a version of firmware (elements) in its memory; device B acquires firmware version information of device C, if device C’s firmware version is older (obsolete) than device B’s firmware version, device B provides the newer firmware to replace the old firmware on device C).
Claim 10 recites similar limitations as claims 1 + 5. Therefore, claim 10 is rejected under similar rationales as claims 1 + 5.
Claims 11-13, 16-17 recite similar limitations as claims 2-4, 7-8. Therefore, claims 11-13, 16-17 are rejected under similar rationales as claims 2-4, 7-8.
Per claim 14, Shimizu further suggests wherein the memory of the first charging station bank is further configured to include instructions that when executed by the processor of the first charging station bank cause the first charging station bank to: determine a version of stored software update data of an nth charging station bank in the charging station network; and one of: (i) provide the software update data to the nth charging station bank, wherein the nth charging station bank has an obsolete software version (claims 1-2; paragraphs [0024]; a plurality of control devices (i.e. charging stations) connected to a network, each control device stores a version of firmware (elements) in its memory; device A (first station) acquires firmware version information of device C (nth station), if device C’s firmware version is older (obsolete) than device A’s firmware version, device A provides the newer firmware to replace the old firmware on device C).
Per claim 15, Shimizu further suggests wherein the memory of the second charging station bank is further configured to include instructions that when executed by the processor of the second charging station bank cause the second charging station bank to: determine a version of stored software update data of an nth charging station bank in the charging station network; and one of: (i) provide the software update data to the nth charging station bank, wherein the nth charging station bank has an obsolete software version (claims 1-2; paragraphs [0024]; a plurality of control devices (i.e. charging stations) connected to a network, each control device stores a version of firmware (elements) in its memory; device B (second station) acquires firmware version information of device C (nth station), if device C’s firmware version is older (obsolete) than device B’s firmware version, device B provides the newer firmware to replace the old firmware on device C).
claims 22-23 are rejected under similar rationales as claims 5-6.
Claims 9, 18 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li, in view of Hanchett, in view of Feldman et al. (US PGPUB 2022/0228877) hereinafter Feldman.
Per claim 9, Li does not explicitly teach wherein the first charging station bank is further configured to operate as a known location for triangulation of a mesh network. However, Feldman suggests the above (paragraphs [0044][0045]; using a charging station bank for triangulation location in a network). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Li, Hanchett and Feldman to utilize the first charging station as a triangulation point in a network, so the user can be provided with location service.
claims 18 and 26 are rejected under similar rationales as claim 9.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HANG PAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7667. The examiner can normally be reached 9 AM to 5 PM.
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, Chat Do can be reached at 571-272-3721. 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.
/HANG PAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2193