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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-5, 7-12, and 14-20 of US Application No. 18/648,523 are currently pending and have been examined. Applicant amended claims 1, 8, 14, and 15 and canceled claims 6, 13, and 20.
Response to Arguments/Amendments
Applicant’s arguments regarding the rejections of claims 1-5, 7-12, and 14-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103, see REMARKS, filed 21 January 2026, have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Applicant amended independent claim 1 to recite the limitations of now-canceled claim 6, i.e., “receiving a validation of the intermediate location from the second transport, wherein the validation comprises a blockchain consensus between the second transport and the server”. Applicant similarly amended independent claims 8 and 15. Applicant argues that the previously-cited prior art does not teach this limitation. However, the Examiner maintains that the combination of Liang and Balaraman teaches this limitation as previously indicated in the rejection of now-canceled claim 6. In particular, Liang discloses that on-board charge controller may inform the driver by displaying the proposed location for battery transfer and an acknowledgement may be received as input from the driver. See at least ¶ [0047]. The acknowledgement may be sent to the central charge controller 902 which may in turn notify the other vehicle that the driver has agreed to transfer battery power at the meeting point. See at least ¶ [0083]. Therefore, Liang teaches receiving a validation of the intermediate location from the second transport. The acknowledgement of Liang is a validation of the transaction to be performed between the two vehicles of Liang. Liang does not teach that the acknowledgement is via blockchain consensus. However, using blockchain consensus to validate transactions is known in the art. Balaraman discloses using blockchain based distributed ledgers that having consensus-based transaction validation. Therefore, the combination of Liang and Balaraman teaches receiving a validation of the intermediate location from the second transport (i.e., driver may acknowledge the proposed charging location and the acknowledgement may be sent to central charge controller – Liang), wherein the validation comprises a blockchain consensus between the second transport and the server (i.e., using blockchain consensus to validate transactions – Balaraman).
Applicant further argues that Balaraman is wholly unrelated field of using blockchain based systems for authorizing and recording financial transactions with no teachings related to energy transfer between transports, determination or validation of physical locations, or coordination between vehicles. However, Balaraman is not being relied upon for teaching the type of transaction. The type of transaction, e.g., charging transaction between vehicles including locations and coordination, is being taught by Liang. Applicant has not argued that Liang does not teach the type of transaction being claimed. Balaraman is relied upon simply for teaching validation of transactions via blockchain.
Based on the above, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
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, 7, 8, 10-12, 14, 15, and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liang et al. (US 2018/0241234 A1, “Liang”) in view of Chakraborty et al. (US 2020/0262305 A1, “Chakraborty”) and Balaraman et al. (US 2019/0164157 A1, “Balaraman”).
Regarding claims 1, 8, and 15, Liang discloses methods and charge controllers for charging of battery in an electric vehicle and teaches:
a processor that executes instructions stored in a memory to configure the processor to (central charge controller 104 comprising a processor and memory – see at least Fig. 2 and ¶ [0013]):
determine an intermediate location by a server for a first transport to receive a certain amount of energy from a second transport (central charge controller 104 determines a proposed location where first and second vehicles can exchange battery power – see at least Fig. 4 and ¶ [0039]; battery power may be received if the current battery charge level is below the battery charge level required to reach the destination – see at least ¶ [0049]);
[ ];
transmit the intermediate location, [ ], and an amount of energy to the first transport and the second transport (on-board charge controllers receive the proposed location from the central charge controller – see at least Fig. 4 and ¶ [0046], [0072]; on-board charge controllers may receive an instruction from central charge controller specifying the amount of battery power to be transferred – see at least ¶ [0047]);
receive a validation of the intermediate location from the second transport [ ] (on-board charge controller may inform the driver by displaying the proposed location for battery transfer and an acknowledgement may be received as input from the driver – see at least ¶ [0047]; acknowledgement may be sent to the central charge controller 902 which may in turn notify the other vehicle that the driver has agreed to transfer battery power at the meeting point – see at least ¶ [0083]); and
instruct the first transport and the second transport to maneuver to [ ] the intermediate location to [ ] transfer the certain amount of energy from the second transport to the first transport while both and the second transport are in motion (vehicles take a detour from their routes to reach the proposed location – see at least ¶ [0043]).
Liang fails to teach calculate an optimal alignment position for the first transport and the second transport to wirelessly transfer the certain amount of energy from the second transport to the first transport; transmit the optimal alignment position; instruct the first transport and the second transport to maneuver to the optimal alignment position; wirelessly transfer energy; and wherein the validation comprises a blockchain consensus between the second transport and the server.
However, Chakraborty discloses a system and method for charging a network of mobile battery-operated units on-the-go and teaches:
calculate an optimal alignment position for the first transport and the second transport to wirelessly transfer the certain amount of energy from the second transport to the first transport (to achieve a speed lock, vehicles may be asked or required to move to beside, behind, or ahead of the other vehicle – see at least ¶ [0087]; wireless charging proximity needed in order to maintain a wireless charging connection – see at least ¶ [0085]; wireless charging proximity may be determined depending on the type and charging protocol of wireless charging device or system – see at least ¶ [0086]);
transmit the optimal alignment position (once computing device determines that a charging transaction is desired or required, the computing device can communicate with participants to the charging transaction with instructions to carry out the charging transaction – see at least ¶ [0082]);
instruct the first transport and the second transport to maneuver to the optimal alignment position (cloud-based control system may speed lock EVs to allow seamless charge sharing – see at least ¶ [0066]; cloud-based control system can instruct the EVs to carry out charge transfer operations – see at least ¶ [0070]; computing device may assume partial or total control of one or more participants to the charging transaction – see at least ¶ [0082]; upon determining a charging transaction is required, computing device may send a signal to command the battery-powered vehicle or the charging vehicle to change position or location with respect to the other vehicle – see at least ¶ [0082]); and
wirelessly transfer energy (replenishing supply of electrical charge can be communicated to the battery-powered vehicle by a wireless electrically coupling of the charge-supplying vehicle and the battery-powered vehicle – see at least ¶ [0085]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the charge controllers for charging of a battery in an electric vehicle of Liang to provide for calculating an optimal alignment position, instruction the transports to maneuver to the optimal alignment position, and wirelessly transfer energy, as taught by Chakraborty, with a reasonable expectation of success, because it would facilitate on-the-go entity-to-entity charging (Chakraborty at abstract).
In addition, Balaraman discloses a transaction authorization process using blockchain and teaches:
wherein the validation comprises a blockchain consensus between the second transport and the server (system may use a distributed ledger, which may be based on a blockchain and may have consensus-based transaction validation – see at least ¶ [0017]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the charge controllers for charging of a battery in an electric vehicle of Liang and Chakraborty to provide for transaction validation, as taught by Balaraman, with a reasonable expectation of success, because it would allow for management of workflows associated with contractual agreements (Balaraman at ¶ [0016]).
Regarding claims 3, 10, and 17, Liang further teaches:
wherein the certain amount of energy is sufficient for the first transport to maneuver to one or more of a charging station or a final destination (charge level required for propelling the first vehicle to the destination – see at least ¶ [0049]).
Regarding claims 4, 11, and 18, Liang further teaches:
determining an other amount of energy needed by the second transport to maneuver back to an initial location (battery power may be supplied to the second vehicle if the current battery charge level is above a battery charge level required for propelling the first electric vehicle to the destination – see at least ¶ [0050]; destination D1 of first vehicle is the final destination where the vehicle will finish its journey – see at least ¶ [0032]).
Regarding claims 5, 12, and 19, Liang further teaches:
receiving network communications comprising route data including the current route and a current energy consumption rate of an electric battery of the first transport (report comprising intended route and current battery charge level are sent to central charge controller – see at least Fig. 4 and ¶ [0045]; reports may include battery consumption rate for determining a suitable meeting location – see at least ¶ [0051]).
Regarding claims 7 and 14 Balaraman further teaches:
executing a smart contract to commit the validation and the intermediate location to a blockchain ledger based on the blockchain consensus (the distributed ledger may enable smart contracts – see at least ¶ [0017]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the charge controllers for charging of a battery in an electric vehicle of Liang, Chakraborty, and Balaraman to provide for executing a smart contract, as further taught by Balaraman, with a reasonable expectation of success, because it would allow for management of workflows associated with contractual agreements (Balaraman at ¶ [0016], [0017]).
Claims 2, 9, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liang in view of Chakraborty and Balaraman, as applied to claims 1, 8, and 15 above, and further in view of Liu et al. (US 9,612,130 B2, “Liu”).
Regarding claims 2, 9, and 16, Liang, Chakraborty, and Balaraman fail to teach but the combination of Liang and Liu teaches:
wherein the determining the intermediate location further comprises identifying environmental conditions that one or more of the first transport and the second transport will encounter (battery consumption rate for determining a suitable meeting location – Liang at ¶ [0051]; energy consumption rates may be based on traffic status and/or energy depletion events, including weather status based on air density, wind speed, wind direction, precipitation, or ambient temperature – Liu at 9:63-10:7).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the charge controllers for charging of a battery in an electric vehicle of Liang, Chakraborty, and Balaraman to provide for using environmental conditions, as taught by Liu, with a reasonable expectation of success, because environmental conditions may be used to determine predicted energy consumption of the vehicle (Liu at 9:63-10:7), such that the energy consumption may be used to determine a suitable meeting location (Liang at ¶ [0051]).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 AARON L TROOST whose telephone number is (571)270-5779. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30am-4pm.
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, Anne Antonucci can be reached at 313-446-6519. 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.
/AARON L TROOST/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3666