DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Application
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 the Claims
This action is in response to the applicant’s filing on December 2, 2025. Claims 1, 4, 5, 8 – 12, 14 – 15, 18 and 19 have been amended, claim 17 has been canceled, and claim 21 has been added. Thus, claims 1 – 16 and 18 – 21 are pending and examined below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 – 16 and 18 – 21 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the new combination of references used in the current rejection.
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 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.
Claims 1 – 3, 6 – 10, 12 – 14, 16 and 18 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0136823 A1 to Wiegman (herein after "Wiegman publication") in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2024/0262233 A1 to Perron-Houle et al. (herein after “Perron-Houle et al. publication").
Note: Text written in bold typeface is claim language from the instant application.
Texts written in normal typeface are comments made by the Examiner and/or passages from the prior art reference(s).
As to claims 1, 7, 12 – 13 and 18,
the Wiegman publication discloses a method for providing automated monitoring of aircraft charging, the method comprising:
detecting a charging status of a charging station indicating initiation of a charging process of an electric aircraft (see ¶29, where “. . . sensor 104 may include circuitry, computing devices, electronic components or a combination thereof that translates sensor datum 108 into at least an electronic signal configured to be transmitted to another electronic component”; see also ¶46, where “sensor 104 may detect a connection status, which may be detected as part of sensor datum 108. A ‘connection status,’ for the purpose of this disclosure, is a determination of a presence of a connection is present, established, and/or disconnected between charging component 132 and electric aircraft 152 and/or electric aircraft port 156”; see also FIG. 4 and ¶85);
receiving data associated with the charging process wherein the data include sensor data from sensors proximate to the charging station (see ¶28, where “sensor 104 may include a motion sensor. A ‘motion sensor’, for the purposes of this disclosure, refers to a device or component configured to detect physical movement of an object or grouping of objects. One of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate, after reviewing the entirety of this disclosure, that motion may include a plurality of types including but not limited to: spinning, rotating, oscillating, gyrating, jumping, sliding, reciprocating, or the like”);
determining the data includes an abnormality associated with the charging process (see ¶83, where “sensor 104 may detect an abnormally slow rate of charging from charging component 132, which may be indicative of a faulty connection between the charging connector and electric aircraft port 156”);
determining a corrective action based, at least, on the abnormality, wherein the corrective action mitigates the abnormality (see ¶63, where “computing device 112 may be configured to determine disruption element 116 between charging component 132 and electric vehicle 152 as a function of sensor datum 108 . For purposes of this disclosure, a ‘disruption element’ is an element of information regarding a present-time failure, fault, or degradation of a condition or working order of a charging connection. In one or more embodiments, disruption element 116 may be determined as a function of sensor datum 108, as discussed further in this disclosure. In some embodiment, computing device 112 may be configured to disable any charging connection based on disruption element 116. In a non-limiting embodiment, disruption element 116 may denote any disconnection between charging component 132 and electric aircraft 152. For example and without limitation, the disconnection may include any electrical disconnection and/or mechanical disconnection. In a non-limiting embodiment, disruption element 116 may include the presence of one or more unsecure connection, wherein the unsecure connection may include a loose and/or faulty connection. For example and without limitation, the connection may include a coupling of a charging port attached to electric aircraft 152 such as electric aircraft port 156 and charging component 132. In another non-limiting embodiment, disruption element 116, may include a null connection. A “null connection,” for the purpose of this disclosure, is any connection that was inappropriately disabled. “Inappropriately disabled,” for the purpose of this disclosure, is a disabling of any component involved in a charging process that is unsafe, unsuccessful, or unauthorized. For example and without limitation, an inappropriately disabled connection may include turning off the charging system and/or charging component 132 at an incorrect time, such as in the middle of a charging process”); and
implementing the corrective action on at least the charging station (see ¶63 et seq.).
The Wiegman publication, however, fails to specifically discloses information gathered from a camera located proximate to the charging station, wherein the camera is configured to analyze a video feed in real time and detect changes in a scene to indicate movement.
The concept of monitoring a scene around a charging station using a camera is old and well-known, as demonstrated by the Perron-Houle et al. publication who discloses “[an] electric vehicle charging station . . . [that] . . . includes a housing, a motion sensor mounted within the housing, and a processor communicably coupled to the motion sensor.” (See Abstract.) In particular, the Perron-Houle et al. publication discloses “[a] controller associated with the EV charging station may be configured to determine, based on sensor output from the motion sensor(s), whether the EV charging station undergoes rotational or linear motion . . . As a particular example, the controller may be configured to detect tilting or tipping of the EV charging station based on sensor output of a motion sensor associated with the EV charging station, and cause to be executed operations for facilitating maintenance and ensuring safety of use of the EV charging station.” (See ¶67.)
The Perron-Houle et al. publication also discloses that “[t]he controller may generate control signals for requesting to obtain image data from the camera system. In at least some implementations, the controller may request to obtain image data, such as images or video, depicting the environment of the EV charging station during a defined time period preceding the time of detecting the first motion. For example, a request may be transmitted to the camera system to obtain a video clip of fixed length depicting a scene including the EV charging station and its vicinity immediately prior to the time of detecting a tilt or tipping of the housing of the EV charging station. Upon obtaining such image data, the controller may process the images/video for analysis or transmit the image data to a remote computing system, such as a computing device associated with an operator entity. In some implementations, the requested image data may comprise images and/or video depicting the surrounding environment at or after the time of detecting the first motion.” (See ¶79.)
Such disclosures by the Perron-Houle et al. publication suggests information gathered from a camera located proximate to the charging station, wherein the camera is configured to analyze a video feed in real time and detect changes in a scene to indicate movement.
Based on a reasonable expectation of success, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was filed to modify the Wiegman publication so that information is gathered from a camera located proximate to the charging station, wherein the camera is configured to analyze a video feed in real time and detect changes in a scene to indicate movement, as suggested by the Perron-Houle et al. publication, in order to facilitate controlling operation of electric vehicle charging stations.
As to claims 2 and 16,
the Wiegman publication discloses implementing the corrective action including providing a notice to an emergency notification system that provides notice to emergency personnel. (See ¶65, wherein “if disconnection protocol 120 such as an immediate shutdown via a disablement of the charging connection is initiated, then computing device 112 may also generate a signal to notify users, support personnel, safety personnel, flight crew, maintainers, operators, emergency personnel, aircraft computers, or a combination thereof. System 100 may include a display. A display may be coupled to electric aircraft 152, The charging component 132, or a remote device. A display may be configured to show a disruption element to a user.”)
As to claim 3,
the Wiegman publication discloses implementing the corrective action including providing a notice to a monitoring room. (See ¶65.)
As to claim 6,
the Wiegman publication discloses the corrective action instructing the charging station to interrupt the charging process of the electric aircraft. (See ¶63 et seq.)
As to claim 8,
the Wiegman publication discloses the additional data including information received from a battery management system associated with the electric aircraft. (See ¶80.)
As to claim 9,
the Wiegman publication discloses the sensor data including readings from an atmospheric sensor. (See ¶30, where “sensor 104 may include a pressure sensor. A ‘pressure’, for the purposes of this disclosure, and as would be appreciated by someone of ordinary skill in the art, is a measure of force required to stop a fluid from expanding and is usually stated in terms of force per unit area. In non-limiting exemplary embodiments, a pressure sensor may be configured to measure an atmospheric pressure and/or a change of atmospheric pressure.”)
As to claim 10,
the Wiegman publication discloses the sensor data including readings from a radiation sensor. (See ¶26, where “sensor 104 may include . . . radiation sensors . . . .”)
As to claim 14,
the Wiegman publication implicitly discloses a monitoring room configured to receive the sensor data, the data from the charging station, the video feed, and the corrective action, wherein the monitoring room is further configured to monitor the charging process based on the sensor data, the video feed, the data from the charging station, and the corrective action. (See ¶63 et seq.)
As to claim 19,
the Wiegman publication discloses the sensor data including environmental data associated with an area surrounding the charging station. (See ¶28.)
As to claim 20,
the Wiegman publication discloses the corrective action causing the charging station to interrupt the charging process. (See ¶63 et seq.)
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the Wiegman publication in view of the Perron-Houle et al. publication, and further in view of the Wiegman publication.
Note: Text written in bold typeface is claim language from the instant application.
Texts written in normal typeface are comments made by the Examiner and/or passages from the prior art reference(s).
As to claim 5,
the modified Wiegman publication discloses the invention substantially as claimed, except for
the abnormality being based on video feed analysis and indicates an unauthorized individual is within a surveyed and restricted area in which the charging station is located.
The Wiegman publication, however, discloses that “sensor 104 may include a motion sensor. A ‘motion sensor’, for the purposes of this disclosure, refers to a device or component configured to detect physical movement of an object or grouping of objects.” (See ¶28 et seq. and ¶63 et seq.) Such disclosure suggests that any abnormality indicating an unauthorized individual within a surveyed and restricted area in which the charging station is located can be sensed/detected.
Based on a reasonable expectation of success, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was filed to further modify the Wiegman publication so that the abnormality indicates an unauthorized individual is within a surveyed and restricted area in which the charging station is located, as suggested by the Wiegman publication, in order to prepare for an emergency shutdown of the electric charger.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the Wiegman publication in view of the Perron-Houle et al. publication, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0025620 A1 to Weksler et al. (herein after “Weksler et al. publication").
Note: Text written in bold typeface is claim language from the instant application.
Texts written in normal typeface are comments made by the Examiner and/or passages from the prior art reference(s).
As to claim 11,
the modified Wiegman publication discloses the invention substantially as claimed, except for
altering motion detection sensitivity of camera, thus modifying the camera and reducing false alarms.
Altering motion detection sensitivity of camera to reduce false alarms is old and well-known, as demonstrated by the Weksler et al. publication. (See ¶15.)
Based on a reasonable expectation of success, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was filed to further modify the Wiegman publication by altering motion detection sensitivity of camera, thus modifying the camera and reducing false alarms, as suggested by the Weksler et al. publication, in order to avoid false motion detection and/or the need for upgrading to a costlier system of detection.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the Wiegman publication in view of the Perron-Houle et al. publication, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0156493 A1 to Li et al. (herein after “Li et al. publication").
Note: Text written in bold typeface is claim language from the instant application.
Texts written in normal typeface are comments made by the Examiner and/or passages from the prior art reference(s).
As to claim 21,
the modified Wiegman publication discloses the invention substantially as claimed, except for
detecting an unauthorized individual is tampering with a charging station, wherein detecting the unauthorized individual comprising: recognizing changes in the scene indicating movement; and detecting tampering to equipment of a charging station.
The Li et al. publication, however, discloses “a charging station monitoring system . . . which reliably monitors the state of the charging station by using a sensing device and a digital camera and sends the monitored contents to the owner of the charging station or the vehicle under charging, so deliberate occupation of the parking lot associated with the charging apparatus and improper or unauthorized actions to the vehicle under charging can be monitored.” (See ¶21.)
Such disclosure suggest detecting an unauthorized individual tampering with a charging station, wherein detecting the unauthorized individual comprises: recognizing changes in the scene indicating movement; and detecting tampering to equipment of a charging station.
Based on a reasonable expectation of success, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was filed to further modify the Wiegman publication to detect an unauthorized individual tampering with a charging station, wherein detecting the unauthorized individual comprises: recognizing changes in the scene indicating movement; and detecting tampering to equipment of a charging station, as suggested by the Li et al. publication, in order to actively monitor the state of the charging station.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4 and 15 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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.
Examiner's Note(s): The Examiner has cited particular paragraphs or columns and line numbers in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested of the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner. SEE MPEP 2141.02 [R-07.2015] VI. PRIOR ART MUST BE CONSIDERED IN ITS ENTIRETY, INCLUDING DISCLOSURES THAT TEACH AWAY FROM THE CLAIMS: A prior art reference must be considered in its entirety, i.e., as a whole, including portions that would lead away from the claimed invention. W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 220 USPQ 303 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert, denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984). See also MPEP §2123.
In addition, disclosures in a reference must be evaluated for what they would fairly teach one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Snow, 471 F.2d 1400, 176 USPQ 328 (CCPA 1973) and In re Boe, 355 F.2d 961, 148 USPQ 507 (CCPA 1966). Specifically, in considering the teachings of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only the specific teachings of the reference, but also the inferences that one skilled in the art would reasonably have been expected to draw from the reference. See In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 159 USPQ 342 (CCPA 1968) and In re Shepard, 319 F.2d 194, 138 USPQ 148 (CCPA 1963). Likewise, it is proper to take into consideration not only the teachings of the prior art, but also the level of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Luck, 476 F.2d 650, 177 USPQ 523 (CCPA 1973). Specifically, those of ordinary skill in the art are presumed to have some knowledge of the art apart from what is expressly disclosed in the references. See In re Jacoby, 309 F.2d 513, 135 USPQ 317 (CCPA 1962).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RODNEY A. BUTLER whose telephone number is (313)446-6513. The examiner can normally be reached on weekdays, Monday through Friday, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Anne M. Antonucci can be reached on weekdays, Monday through Friday, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
Electronic Communications
Prior to initiating the first e-mail correspondence with any examiner, Applicant is responsible for filing a written statement with the USPTO in accordance with MPEP § 502.03 II. All received e-mail messages including e-mail attachments shall be placed into this application’s record.
/RODNEY A BUTLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3666