DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-34 are currently pending in the application 18/657,994 filed 05/08/2024, naming the inventors as Oded Mann and Yohan Albo.
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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d).
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS)s submitted on 06/16/2026 are considered by the examiner in accordance with 37 CFR 1.97, 37 CFR 1.98, and MPEP 609, to the fullest extent of the items presented including any concise explanation. Documents not meeting particular criteria are lined through and not considered.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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 9, 10, and 25 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.
Claims 9 and 10, each of which are dependent on claim 1, recite the limitation "the data channel”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in either claims 9 or 10, and claim 1.
Claim 25 recites the limitation "the at least one power value" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It should read “the at least one power level value”.
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.
Claim(s) 1-7, 9, 11-20 and 23-34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2018/0370379 A1 to Chen et al. (herein Chen) in view of US 2022/0179638 A1 to Lee (herein Lee) in view of US 2020/0073653 A1 to Jeong et al. (herein Jeong) in further view of US 11,982,563 B1 to Staats et al. (herein Staats).
Claim 1
Chen discloses a vehicle charging station (Chen: figure 1, element 14), comprising:
at least one station processor (Chen: figure 1, element 42; [0072]) configured for, when a vehicle is connected to the charging station (Chen: figure 1, vehicle connected to charge station):
sending, to the vehicle, a request for at least one power level value (Chen: [0039], charge station controller … requesting battery status parameter such as state of charge); and
in response to receiving the at least one power level value from the vehicle (Chen: [0040], battery status parameters received):
computing a charging time representative of an expected amount of time for charging at least one battery of the vehicle (Chen: [0040]-[0041], derived/based on received battery status parameters, determine charging parameters such as charging in a given time);
sending the vehicle … an instruction to execute the update while charging the at least one battery (Chen: [0034]; [0044], delivering the update content while charging; [0072], instructions to execute update steps).
To the extent Chen does not explicitly state computing an update time representative of the expected amount of charging time, Chen demonstrates that it was known before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make calculations related to the charging conditions based on the available parameters (Chen: [0041]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the charging station of Chen with calculating the needed charging time when given the parameters of the state of the battery and the charging current used as suggested by the teachings of Chen. This implementation would have been obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would have found: using given variables in an equation/calculation to find a missing variable is a routine and well understood practice, which benefits a system/process by acquiring information that is not directly given, but trivial to determine.
Chen does not explicitly state computing an expected amount of time for executing an update of digital data of the vehicle, where the update time includes an amount of time for reverting the update; and executing the update if the update time is less than the charging time. However, Chen shows delivering update content while charging based on a similar time durations for each (Chen: [0034]; [0043]-[0044]) and instructions to execute the update (Chen: [0072]). Further, Lee demonstrates that it was known before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to calculate a software update time (Lee: figure 6, step S604; and [0163]-[0165]) and to perform the update if the update time is less than the charging time (Lee: figure 6, step S605-S606; [0166]-[0168]). Additionally, Jeong demonstrates that it was known before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to calculate a software update time as including a time for a revert/rollback of a software update in a vehicle (Jeong: [0031], [0034], [0036]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the content updating by the charge station of Chen with calculating the update time (as shown by Lee) such that the calculated update time includes time for a revert/rollback of the update (as shown by Jeong) and to perform/execute the update if the update time is less than the charge time as suggested by the teachings of Lee. This implementation would have been obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would have found: it is desirable for significant/important updates to be performed taking into account what can be accomplished in a safe state of the battery/charge (Lee: [0006]); it is beneficial for an update process to deal with an update failure and the time needed for correction (Jeong: [0034], [0036]); the implementation of is an application of a known elements/techniques yielding predictable results using acceptable pieces of prior art; and all the references are directed to vehicle updates in relation to vehicle charge state.
Additionally, to the extent Chen does not explicitly state computing an amount of time during which the vehicle is guaranteed not to be in use, Staats demonstrates that it was known before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to perform maintenance, such as OTA updates, during periods when an apparatus is not expected to be used, such as nighttime (Staats: 15:65-16:26). Chen shows determining an available amount of charging time and to use this amount in providing options to a user not otherwise using the vehicle/apparatus (Chen: [0050]). Lee shows updates are performed in a state in which the vehicle is stopped or in which the vehicle is not running (Lee: [0004]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the charging station and calculations of Chen with calculating an amount of time during which the vehicle is guaranteed not to be in use as suggested by the teachings of Staats, Chen, and Lee. This implementation would have been obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would have found: routine calculations of a time period, such as the not in use time found in Staats, is consistent with the routine calculations of available time periods of Chen, i.e. the combined calculations are well understood and predictable; further, Staats explicitly states updating when a device is not in use, which bolsters the teachings of Chen and Lee which suggest updating when the apparatus/vehicle is not in use. As such, the combination shows subject to identifying that the update is less than the amount of time during which the vehicle is guaranteed not to be in use, sending and executing the update if the update time is less than the charging time (as discussed above).
Claim 2
Chen discloses the charging station of claim 1, further comprising at least one digital communication network interface (Chen: figure 1, elements 16, 18, 21, 52; [0033]-[0037]), connected to the station processor;
wherein the vehicle comprises at least one other hardware processor (Chen: figure 1, element 22; [0022]; [0043]);
wherein the vehicle processor and the station processor are further configured for establishing at least one digital data communication channel there between via the station data interface (Chen: [0043]-[0044]; figure 1, elements 16 and 21); and
wherein sending the request for the at least one power level value to the vehicle is via the data channel using the station data interface (Chen: [0039], [0043]).
Claim 3
Chen discloses the charging station of claim 2, wherein the station data interface comprises at least one of:
a digital data communication interface in a charging plug of the charging station (Chen: [0018], data though charge port);
a digital data communication interface in a charging socket of the charging station (Chen: [0018], data through charge port); and
a wireless digital data network interface (Chen: figure 1, element 21).
Claim 4
Chen discloses the charging station of claim 2 wherein the station data interface comprises a wireless digital data network interface (Chen: figure 1, elements 16, 18, 21, 52; [0033]-[0037]); and
wherein the vehicle processor is further configured for providing to the charging station at least one credential value for the purpose of establishing the data channel (Chen: [0066]-[0067], identifying users/vehicles using the network services via the data channel).
Claim 5
Chen discloses the charging station of claim 2, wherein the station processor is further configured for providing the vehicle, using the data channel, with updated digital data for the purpose of executing the update (Chen: [0034], updates; [0072], update instructions).
Claim 6
Chen discloses the charging station of claim 2, wherein the station processor is further configured for connecting via the station data interface to at least one user application, executed by at least one additional hardware processor (Chen: [0042], user interface mobile device application).
Claim 7
Chen discloses the charging station of claim 6, wherein the station processor is further configured for receiving from the at least one user application at least one user input value for the purpose of computing the charging time (Chen: [0042], user interface mobile device application providing parameters used to calculate charging time).
Claim 9
Chen, Lee, and Jeong disclose the charging station of claim 1, wherein the station processor is further configured for: sending the vehicle, via the data channel (Chen: [0043]-[0044]; figure 1, elements 16 and 21), a request for at least one vehicle data value (Chen: [0039], charge station controller … requesting battery status parameter such as state of charge); and receiving the at least one vehicle data value from the vehicle, via the data channel (Chen: [0040], battery status parameters received).
Claim 11
Chen discloses the charging station of claim 1, wherein the digital data comprises one or more sets of computer instructions (Chen: [0072], instructions to execute update steps).
Claim 12
Chen discloses the charging station of claim 1, wherein the digital data comprise one or more sets of component configuration values (Chen: [0034], broadly vehicle system updates).
Claims 13-20 and 23-34
The limitations of claims 13-20 and 23-34 correspond to the limitations of claims 1-7, 9, and 11-12 and as such are rejected in a corresponding manner. Further, Chen shows a cellular network for transmitting updated data (Chen: figure 1; [0033]; and [0036]).
Claim(s) 8 and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2018/0370379 A1 to Chen et al. (herein Chen) in view of US 2022/0179638 A1 to Lee (herein Lee) in view of US 2020/0073653 A1 to Jeong et al. (herein Jeong) in view of US 11,982,563 B1 to Staats et al. (herein Staats) in further view of US 2021/0188243 A1 to Morii et al. (herein Morii).
Claim 8
Chen does not explicitly state sending an update based on receiving a user confirmation value. However, Morii demonstrates that it was known before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to update based on a user confirmation from a user application (Morii: figure 7, element S07; figure 8, S28). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the software update system of Chen with executing/performing the update based on a user confirmation as suggested by the teachings of Morii. This implementation would have been obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would have found: it improves a user experience by allowing the user to remain in control and aware of their vehicle’s operations; the implementation of is an application of a known element/technique yielding a predictable result using an acceptable piece of prior art; and both Chen and Morii are directed to vehicle updates.
Claim 22
The limitations of claim 22 correspond to the limitations of claim 8 and as such are rejected in a corresponding manner.
Claim(s) 10 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2018/0370379 A1 to Chen et al. (herein Chen) in view of US 2022/0179638 A1 to Lee (herein Lee) in view of US 2020/0073653 A1 to Jeong et al. (herein Jeong) in view of US 11,982,563 B1 to Staats et al. (herein Staats) in further view of US 2019/0294135 A1 to Madrid et al. (herein Madrid).
Claim 10
Chen discloses the charging station of claim 1, wherein the station processor is further configured for sending the vehicle, via the data channel (Chen: [0043]-[0044]; figure 1, elements 16 and 21). Chen does not explicitly state sending a maintenance instruction to execute at least a diagnostic operation. However, Madrid demonstrates that it was known before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to send maintenance instructions for diagnostic operations (Madrid: [0044]; [0075]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the software update system of Chen with diagnostic operations as suggested by the teachings of Madrid. This implementation would have been obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would have found: a diagnostic protocol would be beneficial to identity what/where an update is necessary; the implementation of is an application of a known element/technique yielding a predictable result using an acceptable piece of prior art; and both Chen and Madrid are directed to vehicle updates via a charging station.
Claim 21
The limitations of claim 21 correspond to the limitations of claim 10 and as such are rejected in a corresponding manner.
Withdrawn Objections and Rejections
The following objections/rejections from the Office Action of 04/01/2026 are withdrawn in view of the Applicant Response of 06/16/2026: (1) the rejections of claims 1-34 under 35 USC 112(b) with regard to extraneous parenthesis (overcome by the amendments); and (2) the rejections of claims 11 and 12 under 35 USC 112(b) with regard to antecedent basis of the term “the digital data” (upon further review the antecedent basis provided by claim 1 is sufficient).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 06/16/2026 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
Correspondence Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM H WOOD whose telephone number is (571)272-3736. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7am-3pm.
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, Alexander Kosowski can be reached at (571)272-3744. 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.
/William H. Wood/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3992
Prosecution Insights