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 . This action is made non-final.
Claims 1-20 filed on 05/08/2024 have been reviewed and considered by this office action.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed on 05/08/2024 have been reviewed and considered by this office action.
Drawings
The drawings filed on 05/08/2024 have been reviewed and are considered acceptable.
Specification
The specification filed on 05/08/2024 has been reviewed and is considered acceptable.
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 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
With respect to claim 1:
2A Prong 1: The claim recites an abstract idea. Specifically:
Processor configured to:
determine that the charging station is in a suboptimal condition; (Mental process – determine is an evaluation that can be practically performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper as a physical aid – see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III))
classify the suboptimal condition into a predefined type, of a plurality of predefined types, based on the inputs obtain inputs from the sensor unit; (Mental process – classify is an evaluation that can be practically performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper as a physical aid – see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III))
2A Prong 2: The additional elements recited in the claim do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, individually or in combination.
Additional elements:
obtain inputs from the sensor unit; (Insignificant extra-solution activity (mere data gathering) – see MPEP § 2106.05(g))
sensor unit comprising configured to capture inputs associated with a charging station; (Insignificant extra-solution activity (mere data gathering) – see MPEP § 2106.05(g) )
perform remedial action based on the predefined type; (Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea – see MPEP § 2106.05(f))
2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Additional elements:
obtain inputs from the sensor unit; (Storing and retrieving information in memory have been deemed well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions – see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(ll))
sensor unit comprising configured to capture inputs associated with a charging station; (Storing and retrieving information in memory have been deemed well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions – see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(ll))
perform remedial action based on the predefined type; (The additional features including perform remedial action based on a predefined type as recited in the claim are configured to carry out the additional and abstract idea limitations may be tools that are used for the functions recited in claim, but recited so generically that they represent no more than mere instructions “to apply” the judicial exceptions on or using a generic electronic or computer component – see MPEP § 2106.05(f) Implementing an abstract idea on generic electronic or computer components as tools to perform an abstract idea does not amount to significantly more)
Therefore, claim 1 is ineligible.
With respect to claim 2:
2A Prong 2: The additional elements recited in the claim do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, individually or in combination.
Additional elements:
the processor is further configured to output a classification confirmation request; (Insignificant extra-solution activity (mere data gathering) – see MPEP § 2106.05(g))
obtain a confirmation from a user responsive to; (Insignificant extra-solution activity (Insignificant extra-solution activity (mere data gathering) – see MPEP § 2106.05(g))
perform the remedial action responsive to; (Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea – see MPEP § 2106.05(f))
2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Additional elements:
the processor is further configured to output a classification confirmation request; (Presenting offers and gathering statistics have been deemed well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions – see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(ll))
obtain a confirmation from a user responsive to; (recording a customer’s order (or an equivalent)– see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(ll))
perform remedial action based on the predefined type; (The additional features including perform remedial action based on a predefined type as recited in the claim are configured to carry out the additional and abstract idea limitations may be tools that are used for the functions recited in the claim, but recited so generically that they represent no more than mere instructions “to apply” the judicial exceptions on or using a generic electronic or computer component – see MPEP § 2106.05(f) Implementing an abstract idea on generic electronic or computer components as tools to perform an abstract idea does not amount to significantly more)
Therefore, claim 2 is ineligible.
With respect to claim 3:
2A Prong 1: The claim recites an abstract idea. Specifically:
generate a charging station review; (Mental process – generating a review is an observation that can be practically performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper as a physical aid – see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III))
2A Prong 2: The additional elements recited in the claim do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, individually or in combination.
Additional elements:
outputting the review confirmation request; (Insignificant extra-solution activity (mere data gathering) – see MPEP § 2106.05(g))
obtain a confirmation from the user; (Insignificant extra-solution activity (mere data gathering) – see MPEP § 2106.05(g))
perform remedial action responsive to obtaining the confirmation; (Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea – see MPEP § 2106.05(f))
transmitting the charging station review to server; (Insignificant extra-solution activity (mere data gathering) – see MPEP § 2106.05(g))
2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Additional elements:
outputting the review confirmation request; (Presenting offers and gathering statistics have been deemed well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions – see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(ll))
wherein the remedial action comprises transmitting the charging station review to a server; (Receiving or transmitting data over a network has been deemed a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function – see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(ll))
obtain a confirmation from the user; (recording a customer’s order (or an equivalent)– see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(ll))
transmitting the charging station review to server; (Receiving or transmitting data over a network has been deemed a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function – see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(ll))
perform remedial action based on the predefined type; (The additional features including perform remedial action based on a predefined type as recited in the claim are configured to carry out the additional and abstract idea limitations may be tools that are used for the functions recited in claim, but recited so generically that they represent no more than mere instructions “to apply” the judicial exceptions on or using a generic electronic or computer component – see MPEP § 2106.05(f) Implementing an abstract idea on generic electronic or computer components as tools to perform an abstract idea does not amount to significantly more)
Therefore, claim 3 is ineligible.
With respect to claim 4:
2A Prong 1: The claim recites an abstract idea. Specifically:
when the processor determines that all chargers at the charging station are occupied; (Mental process – determines (evaluates) is an observation that can be practically performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper as a physical aid – see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III))
Therefore, claim 4 is ineligible.
With respect to claim 5:
2A Prong 1: The claim recites an abstract idea. Specifically:
processor is configured to determine that a charger at the charging station is occupied; (Mental process – determines is an evaluation that can be practically performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper as a physical aid – see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III))
2A Prong 2: The additional elements recited in the claim do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, individually or in combination.
Additional elements:
performs remedial action by transmitting; (Insignificant extra-solution activity (mere data gathering) – see MPEP § 2106.05(g))
2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Additional elements:
transmitting a vehicle parking adjustment request to a user device associated with the owner of the second vehicle or an error notification to a server; (Receiving or transmitting data over a network has been deemed a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function – see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(ll))
Therefore, claim 5 is ineligible.
With respect to claim 6:
2A Prong 2: The additional elements recited in the claim do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, individually or in combination.
Additional elements:
the second vehicle is configured to; (Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea – see MPEP § 2106.05(f))
The examiner understands the concept but the words “is configured to” shows the action has the potential to be completed reciting an abstract idea. The examiner respectfully recommends the applicant to amend the part of the claim to read “the second vehicle autonomously moves and parks”.
2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The second vehicle is configured to (The additional features including “is configured to” as recited in the claim are configured to carry out the additional and abstract idea limitations may be tools that are used for the functions recited in the claim, but recited as “a potential to” that they represent no more than mere instructions “to apply” the judicial exceptions on or using a generic electronic or computer component – see MPEP § 2106.05(f) Implementing an abstract idea on generic electronic or computer components as tools to perform an abstract idea does not amount to significantly more)
Therefore, claim 6 is ineligible.
With respect to claim 7:
2A Prong 2: The additional elements recited in the claim do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, individually or in combination.
Additional elements:
performs the remedial action by outputting a recommendation; (Insignificant extra-solution activity (mere data gathering) – see MPEP § 2106.05(g))
2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Additional elements:
outputting a recommendation; (Presenting offers and gathering statistics have been deemed well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions – see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(ll))
Therefore, claim 7 is ineligible.
With respect to claim 8:
2A Prong 2: The additional elements recited in the claim do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, individually or in combination.
Additional elements:
output information associated with one or more incentives; (Insignificant extra-solution activity (mere data gathering) – see MPEP § 2106.05(g))
2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Additional elements:
output information associated with one or more incentives; (Presenting offers and gathering statistics have been deemed well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions – see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(ll))
Therefore, claim 8 is ineligible.
With respect to claim 9:
2A Prong 1: The claim recites an abstract idea. Specifically:
processor determines that a tire associated with a third vehicle is parked on a charging chord; (Mental process – determines is an evaluation that can be practically performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper as a physical aid – see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III))
2A Prong 2: The additional elements recited in the claim do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, individually or in combination.
Additional elements:
processor performs the remedial action by transmitting a small vehicle movement request to the third vehicle or a user device; (Insignificant extra-solution activity (mere data gathering) – see MPEP § 2106.05(g))
2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Additional elements:
transmitting a small vehicle movement request; (Receiving or transmitting data over a network has been deemed a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function – see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(ll))
Therefore, claim 9 is ineligible.
With respect to claim 10:
2A Prong 1: The claim recites an abstract idea. Specifically:
processor determines that at least one charger at the charging station is not operational; (Mental process – determines is an evaluation that can be practically performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper as a physical aid – see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III))
2A Prong 2: The additional elements recited in the claim do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, individually or in combination.
Additional elements:
the processor performs the remedial action by transmitting an error notification to a server or a computing system; (Insignificant extra-solution activity (mere data gathering) – see MPEP § 2106.05(g))
2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Additional elements:
transmitting an error notification to a server or a computing system; (Receiving or transmitting data over a network has been deemed a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function – see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(ll))
Therefore, claim 10 is ineligible.
With respect to claim 11:
2A Prong 1: The claim recites an abstract idea. Specifically:
the processor is further configured to:
determine an identifier information and an issue type associated with at least one charger based on the inputs; (Mental process – determine is an evaluation that can be practically performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper as a physical aid – see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III))
2A Prong 2: The additional elements recited in the claim do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, individually or in combination.
Additional elements:
the processor is further configured to:
output an issue type confirmation request; (Insignificant extra-solution activity (mere data gathering) – see MPEP § 2106.05(g))
obtain a confirmation from a user responsive to; (Insignificant extra-solution activity (mere data gathering) – see MPEP § 2106.05(g))
transmit the error notification responsive to; (Insignificant extra-solution activity (mere data gathering) – see MPEP § 2106.05(g))
2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Additional elements:
output an issue type confirmation request; (Presenting offers and gathering statistics have been deemed well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions – see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(ll))
obtain a confirmation from a user responsive to; (recording a customer’s order (or an equivalent)– see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(ll))
transmit the error notification responsive to; (Receiving or transmitting data over a network has been deemed a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function – see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(ll))
Therefore, claim 11 is ineligible.
With respect to claim 12:
2A Prong 2: The additional elements recited in the claim do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, individually or in combination.
Additional elements:
sensor unit is comprises at least one of a video camera, a Radio Detection and Ranging (radar) sensor, or a Light Detection and Ranging (lidar) sensor; (Generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP § 2106.05(h))
2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
sensor unit comprises at least one of a video camera, a Radio Detection and Ranging (radar) sensor, or a Light Detection and Ranging (lidar) sensor; (the additional features including the components recited in the claim are configured to carry out the additional and abstract idea limitations may be tools that are used for the functions recited in the claim, but recited so generically that they represent no more than a “generic field of use” – see MPEP § 2106.05(h) whether the additional elements amount to more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use)
Therefore, claim 12 is ineligible.
With respect to claim 13:
2A Prong 1: The claim recites an abstract idea. Specifically:
determine that the charging station is in the suboptimal condition; (Mental process – determine is an evaluation that can be practically performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper as a physical aid – see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III))
classify the suboptimal condition in to the predefined type based on the additional inputs; (Mental process – classify is an evaluation that can be practically performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper as a physical aid – see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III))
2A Prong 2: The additional elements recited in the claim do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, individually or in combination.
Additional elements:
obtain additional inputs from one or more sensors associated with the charging station; (Insignificant extra-solution activity (mere data gathering) – see MPEP § 2106.05(g) also see MPEP § 2106.05(g)
2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Additional elements:
obtain additional inputs from one or more sensors associated with the charging station; (Receiving or transmitting data over a network has been deemed a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function – see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(ll))
Therefore, claim 13 is ineligible.
With respect to claim 14:
2A Prong 1: The claim recites an abstract idea. Specifically:
determining, by the processor, that the charging station is in suboptimal condition; (Mental process – determine is an evaluation that can be practically performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper as a physical aid – see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III))
classifying, by the processor, the suboptimal condition into a predefined type; (Mental process – classify is an evaluation that can be practically performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper as a physical aid – see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III))
2A Prong 2: The additional elements recited in the claim do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, individually or in combination.
Additional elements:
Obtaining, by the processor, inputs from a sensor unit associated with a first vehicle; (Insignificant extra-solution activity (mere data gathering) – see MPEP § 2106.05(g))
sensor unit is configured to capture the inputs associated with a charging station; (Insignificant extra-solution activity (mere data gathering) – see MPEP § 2106.05(g))
performing, by the processor, a remedial action based on the predefined type; (Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea – see MPEP § 2106.05(f))
2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Additional elements:
Obtaining, by the processor, inputs from a sensor unit associated with a first vehicle; (Storing and retrieving information in memory have been deemed well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions – see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(ll))
sensor unit is configured to capture the inputs associated with a charging station; (Storing and retrieving information in memory have been deemed well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions – see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(ll))
performing, by the processor, a remedial action based on the predefined type; (The additional features including perform remedial action based on a predefined type as recited in the claim are configured to carry out the additional and abstract idea limitations may be tools that are used for the functions recited in claim, but recited so generically that they represent no more than mere instructions “to apply” the judicial exceptions on or using a generic electronic or computer component – see MPEP § 2106.05(f) Implementing an abstract idea on generic electronic or computer components as tools to perform an abstract idea does not amount to significantly more)
Therefore, claim 14 is ineligible.
With respect to claim 15:
2A Prong 2: The additional elements recited in the claim do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, individually or in combination.
Additional elements:
outputting a classification confirmation request; (Insignificant extra-solution activity (mere data gathering) – see MPEP § 2106.05(g))
obtaining a confirmation from a user responsive to; (Insignificant extra-solution activity (mere data gathering) – see MPEP § 2106.05(g))
performing the remedial action responsive to; (Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea – see MPEP § 2106.05(f))
2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Additional elements:
outputting a classification confirmation request; (Presenting offers and gathering statistics have been deemed well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions – see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(ll))
obtaining a confirmation from a user responsive to; (recording a customer’s order (or an equivalent)– see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(ll))
perform remedial action responsive to; (The additional features including perform remedial action based on a predefined type as recited in the claim are configured to carry out the additional and abstract idea limitations may be tools that are used for the functions recited in claim, but recited so generically that they represent no more than mere instructions “to apply” the judicial exceptions on or using a generic electronic or computer component – see MPEP § 2106.05(f) Implementing an abstract idea on generic electronic or computer components as tools to perform an abstract idea does not amount to significantly more)
Therefore, claim 15 is ineligible.
With respect to claim 16:
2A Prong 1: The claim recites an abstract idea. Specifically:
generating a charging station review; (Mental process – generating a review is an observation that can be practically performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper as a physical aid – see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III))
2A Prong 2: The additional elements recited in the claim do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, individually or in combination.
Additional elements:
Outputting a review confirmation request; (Insignificant extra-solution activity (mere data gathering) – see MPEP § 2106.05(g))
Obtaining a confirmation from a user responsive; (Insignificant extra-solution activity (mere data gathering) – see MPEP § 2106.05(g))
Performing the remedial action; (Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea – see MPEP § 2106.05(f))
Transmitting the charging station review to a server; (Insignificant extra-solution activity (mere data gathering) – see MPEP § 2106.05(g))
2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Additional elements:
Outputting a review confirmation request; (Presenting offers and gathering statistics have been deemed well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions – see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(ll))
Obtaining a confirmation from a user responsive; (recording a customer’s order (or an equivalent)– see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(ll))
Transmitting the charging station review to a server; (Receiving or transmitting data over a network has been deemed a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function – see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(ll))
perform remedial action; (The additional features including perform remedial action based on a predefined type as recited in the claim are configured to carry out the additional and abstract idea limitations may be tools that are used for the functions recited in claim, but recited so generically that they represent no more than mere instructions “to apply” the judicial exceptions on or using a generic electronic or computer component – see MPEP § 2106.05(f) Implementing an abstract idea on generic electronic or computer components as tools to perform an abstract idea does not amount to significantly more)
Therefore, claim 16 is ineligible.
With respect to claim 17:
2A Prong 2: The additional elements recited in the claim do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, individually or in combination.
Additional elements:
wherein the predefined type is a first predefined type; (Insignificant extra-solution activity (mere data gathering) – see MPEP § 2106.05(g))
performing the remedial action; (Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea – see MPEP § 2106.05(f))
outputting a recommendation for a different charging station; (Insignificant extra-solution activity (mere data gathering) – see MPEP § 2106.05(g))
2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Additional elements:
wherein the predefined type is a first predefined type; (Storing and retrieving information in memory have been deemed well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions – see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(ll))
outputting a recommendation for a different charging station; (Presenting offers and gathering statistics have been deemed well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions – see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(ll))
perform remedial action; (The additional features including perform remedial action based on a predefined type as recited in the claim are configured to carry out the additional and abstract idea limitations may be tools that are used for the functions recited in claim, but recited so generically that they represent no more than mere instructions “to apply” the judicial exceptions on or using a generic electronic or computer component – see MPEP § 2106.05(f) Implementing an abstract idea on generic electronic or computer components as tools to perform an abstract idea does not amount to significantly more)
Therefore, claim 17 is ineligible.
With respect to claim 18:
2A Prong 2: The additional elements recited in the claim do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, individually or in combination.
Additional elements:
wherein the predefined type is a second predefined type; (Insignificant extra-solution activity (mere data gathering) – see MPEP § 2106.05(g))
performing the remedial action comprises; (Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea – see MPEP § 2106.05(f))
transmitting a small vehicle movement request to the second vehicle; (Insignificant extra-solution activity (mere data gathering) – see MPEP § 2106.05(g))
2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Additional elements:
wherein the predefined type is a second predefined type; (Storing and retrieving information in memory have been deemed well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions – see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(ll))
transmitting a small vehicle movement request to the second vehicle; (Receiving or transmitting data over a network has been deemed a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function – see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(ll))
perform remedial action comprises; (The additional features including perform remedial action based on a predefined type as recited in the claim are configured to carry out the additional and abstract idea limitations may be tools that are used for the functions recited in claim, but recited so generically that they represent no more than mere instructions “to apply” the judicial exceptions on or using a generic electronic or computer component – see MPEP § 2106.05(f) Implementing an abstract idea on generic electronic or computer components as tools to perform an abstract idea does not amount to significantly more)
Therefore, claim 18 is ineligible.
With respect to claim 19:
2A Prong 2: The additional elements recited in the claim do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, individually or in combination.
Additional elements:
wherein the predefined type is a third predefined type; (Insignificant extra-solution activity (mere data gathering) – see MPEP § 2106.05(g))
performing the remedial action comprises; (Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea – see MPEP § 2106.05(f))
transmitting an error notification to the server or a computing system associated with the charging station; (Insignificant extra-solution activity (mere data gathering) – see MPEP § 2106.05(g))
2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Additional elements:
wherein the predefined type is a third predefined type; (Storing and retrieving information in memory have been deemed well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions – see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(ll))
transmitting an error notification to the server or a computing system associated with the charging station; (Receiving or transmitting data over a network has been deemed a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function – see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(ll))
perform remedial action comprises; (The additional features including perform remedial action based on a predefined type as recited in the claim are configured to carry out the additional and abstract idea limitations may be tools that are used for the functions recited in claim, but recited so generically that they represent no more than mere instructions “to apply” the judicial exceptions on or using a generic electronic or computer component – see MPEP § 2106.05(f) Implementing an abstract idea on generic electronic or computer components as tools to perform an abstract idea does not amount to significantly more)
Therefore, claim 19 is ineligible.
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 (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 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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 10, 12, 13, 14, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Ferone et al. (US 20250256611 A1, herein Ferone).
Regarding claim 1, Ferone teaches A first vehicle comprising:
a sensor unit configured to capture inputs associated with a charging station when the first vehicle is located at the charging station (FIG. 4D shows the vehicle having sensors (412E); FIG. 4A shows [0110] “The vehicle 402B may also interact wirelessly and/or wired with other vehicles 408B, the charging station(s) 406B and/or with the electric grid(s) 404B.”);
and a processor communicatively coupled with the sensor unit (see FIG. 4D; [0120] the vehicle 410E includes a processor 420E, a memory 422E, a communication unit 424E, and an electronic display 426E. see also FIG. 1A),
wherein the processor is configured to:
obtain the inputs from the sensor unit (see FIG. 2B; [0068] “processor 204 can further communicate with one or more elements 230 including sensor 212);
determine that the charging station is in a suboptimal condition based on the inputs (see FIG. 3A, 3B, 3C; [0086] the decision subsystems 316 gather data from one or more sensors 312 to aid in the decision-making process.
see FIG 4D; (the term coupled to one another is interpreted as the processor in receiving inputs from the sensor [0121] The vehicle 410E may include one or more processors 420E. Other processors, operating systems, sensors, displays, and physical configurations that are communicably coupled to one another (not depicted) may be used with the instant solution.
Unable to receive charge is interpreted as the charging station in suboptimal condition [0051] In some embodiments, the processor 111 or the server 123 determines that the first vehicle 102 is unable to receive a charge at the charging station 107.);
classify the suboptimal condition into a predefined type, of a plurality of predefined types, based on the inputs (the examples are interpreted as predefined types (different conditions) [0051] For example, there may be a problem with a nozzle 121 at the charging station 107, a problem with a charging port 115 of the first vehicle 102, a problem with a connection between the nozzle 121 and the charging port 115, a missing nozzle 121, an outage associated with an electrical grid 143, or an inability for the charging station 107 to process a financial transaction associated with the charge.);
and perform a remedial action based on the predefined type (FIG. 2D; [0073] in response to determining that the first vehicle is unable to receive the charge, sending to the first vehicle a location of an alternate charging station that can provide a charge to the first vehicle 247D).
Regarding claim 10, Ferone teaches the first vehicle of claim 1,
Ferone teaches wherein ([0051] In some embodiments, the processor 111 or the server 123 determines that the first vehicle 102 is unable to receive a charge at the charging station 107.), and
wherein the processor performs the remedial action by transmitting an error notification to a server or a computing system associated with the charging station ([0053] When the processor 111 determines that the first vehicle 102 is unable to receive the charge, the processor 111 may send a notification over a network 104 to the server 123 indicating that the first vehicle 102 is unable to receive the charge.) when the predefined type is the third predefined type.
Regarding claim 12, Ferone teaches the first vehicle of claim 1,
wherein the sensor unit comprises at least one of a vehicle camera, a Radio Detection and Ranging (radar) sensor, or a Light Detection and Ranging (lidar) sensor (FIG. 4D, 412E; [0126] The sensor set 412E may include any sensors in the vehicle 410E generating sensor data. For example, the sensor set 412E may include short-range sensors and long-range sensors. In some embodiments, the sensor set 412E of the vehicle 410E may include one or more of the following vehicle sensors: a camera, a Light Detection and Ranging (Lidar) sensor, a radar sensor.).
Regarding claim 13, Ferone teaches the first vehicle of claim 1,
Ferone teaches wherein the processor is further configured to:
obtain additional inputs from one or more sensors associated with the charging station (see FIG.1 [0059] the server 123 of the charging station 107 gathers charging statistics from one or more vehicles including one or more of the first vehicle 102. The server 123 may send the charging statistics over the network 104 to one or more of the first vehicle 102);
and determine that the charging station is in the suboptimal condition and classify the suboptimal condition into the predefined type based on the additional inputs (see FIG.1; “zero or more successful charging session” indicates the charger is inoperable [0059] Based on the charging statistics, the server 123 may determine zero or more successful charging sessions for the charging station 107.).
Regarding claim 14, Ferone teaches A method comprising:
obtaining, by a processor, inputs from a sensor unit associated with a first vehicle (see FIG. 2B; [0068] “processor 204 can further communicate with one or more elements 230 including sensor 212),
wherein the sensor unit is configured to capture the inputs associated with a charging station when the first vehicle is located at the charging station (FIG. 4D shows the vehicle having sensors (412E); FIG. 4A shows [0110] “The vehicle 402B may also interact wirelessly and/or wired with other vehicles 408B, the charging station(s) 406B and/or with the electric grid(s) 404B.”);
determining, by the processor, that the charging station is in a suboptimal condition based on the inputs (see FIG. 3A, 3B, 3C; [0086] the decision subsystems 316 gather data from one or more sensors 312 to aid in the decision-making process.
see FIG 4D; (the term coupled to one another is interpreted as the processor in receiving inputs from the sensor [0121] The vehicle 410E may include one or more processors 420E. Other processors, operating systems, sensors, displays, and physical configurations that are communicably coupled to one another (not depicted) may be used with the instant solution.
Unable to receive charge is interpreted as the charging station in suboptimal condition [0051] In some embodiments, the processor 111 or the server 123 determines that the first vehicle 102 is unable to receive a charge at the charging station 107.);
classifying, by the processor, the suboptimal condition into a predefined type, of a plurality of predefined types, based on the inputs (the examples are interpreted as predefined types (different conditions) [0051] For example, there may be a problem with a nozzle 121 at the charging station 107, a problem with a charging port 115 of the first vehicle 102, a problem with a connection between the nozzle 121 and the charging port 115, a missing nozzle 121, an outage associated with an electrical grid 143, or an inability for the charging station 107 to process a financial transaction associated with the charge.);
and performing, by the processor, a remedial action based on the predefined type (FIG. 2D; [0073] in response to determining that the first vehicle is unable to receive the charge, sending to the first vehicle a location of an alternate charging station that can provide a charge to the first vehicle 247D).
Regarding claim 19, Ferone teaches the method of claim 14,
Ferone teaches wherein the predefined type is a third predefined type when at least one charger at the charging station is not operational ([0053] When the processor 111 determines that the first vehicle 102 is unable to receive the charge, the processor 111 may send a notification over a network 104 to the server 123 indicating that the first vehicle 102 is unable to receive the charge.), and
wherein performing the remedial action comprises
transmitting an error notification to a server or a computing system associated with the charging station when the predefined type is the third predefined type ([0053] When the processor 111 determines that the first vehicle 102 is unable to receive the charge, the processor 111 may send a notification over a network 104 to the server 123 indicating that the first vehicle 102 is unable to receive the charge.).
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.
Claims 2, 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ferone (US 20250256611 A1), in view of Cun et al. (US 20150321570 A1, herein Cun).
Regarding claim 2, Ferone teaches the first vehicle of claim 1,
wherein the processor is further configured to:
output a classification confirmation request responsive to classifying the suboptimal condition (suboptimal conditions is problem exists at the charging port, notification is a classification confirmation request [0057] When the processor 111 determines that the problem exists at the first vehicle 102, such as the problem with the charging port 115, the processor 111 may send a notification to a device associated with an occupant of the first vehicle 102, such as a mobile device 118.),
wherein the classification confirmation request comprises
information associated with the predefined type (comprises information is such as the problem with the charging port [0057] When the processor 111 determines that the problem exists at the first vehicle 102, such as the problem with the charging port 115, the processor 111 may send a notification to a device associated with an occupant of the first vehicle 102, such as a mobile device 118.);
and perform the remedial action responsive to obtaining the confirmation (FIG. 2D [0073] wherein, in response to determining that the first vehicle is unable to receive the charge, sending to the first vehicle a location of an alternate charging station that can provide a charge to the first vehicle 247D).
Ferone doesn’t explicitly teach obtain a confirmation from a user responsive to outputting the classification confirmation request and obtain a confirmation from a user.
Cun teaches obtain a confirmation from a user responsive to outputting the classification confirmation request and obtain a conformation from a user([0041] The controller 106 processes the charging information from the charging station 200. The controller 106 may prompt the operator, such as at the user interface 130, to select charging characteristics at 306, which may be based on the charging information from the charging station 200 and/or based on other charging information from the EV 100. For example, the user interface 130 may display one or more prompts on the display 132 that allow the operator to select charging characteristics to control the charging operation.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adapt the processor of Ferone to incorporate the teachings of Cun so as to include the user interface to have user interaction. Doing so would allow improvement for functions related to vehicles (Cun [0050] the operator does not necessarily have to return to the EV to make the selections).
Regarding claim 15, Ferone teaches the method of claim 14 further comprising:
outputting a classification confirmation request responsive to classifying the suboptimal condition (suboptimal conditions is problem exists at the charging port, notification is a classification confirmation request [0057] When the processor 111 determines that the problem exists at the first vehicle 102, such as the problem with the charging port 115, the processor 111 may send a notification to a device associated with an occupant of the first vehicle 102, such as a mobile device 118.),
wherein the classification confirmation request comprises
information associated with the predefined type (comprises information is such as the problem with the charging port [0057] When the processor 111 determines that the problem exists at the first vehicle 102, such as the problem with the charging port 115, the processor 111 may send a notification to a device associated with an occupant of the first vehicle 102, such as a mobile device 118.);
and performing the remedial action responsive to obtaining the confirmation (FIG. 2D [0073] wherein, in response to determining that the first vehicle is unable to receive the charge, sending to the first vehicle a location of an alternate charging station that can provide a charge to the first vehicle 247D).
Ferone doesn’t explicitly teach obtain a confirmation from a user responsive to outputting the classification confirmation request and obtaining a confirmation from a user responsive to outputting the classification confirmation request.
Cun teaches obtain a confirmation from a user responsive to outputting the classification confirmation request and obtaining a confirmation from a user responsive to outputting the classification confirmation request ([0041] The controller 106 processes the charging information from the charging station 200. The controller 106 may prompt the operator, such as at the user interface 130, to select charging characteristics at 306, which may be based on the charging information from the charging station 200 and/or based on other charging information from the EV 100. For example, the user interface 130 may display one or more prompts on the display 132 that allow the operator to select charging characteristics to control the charging operation.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adapt the processor of Ferone to incorporate the teachings of Cun so as to include the user interface to have user interaction. Doing so would allow improvement for functions related to vehicles (Cun [0050] the operator does not necessarily have to return to the EV to make the selections).
Claims 3, 11, 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ferone (US 20250256611 A1) in view of Iwamura (US 20150298565 A1) and further in view of Cun (US 20150321570 A1). .
Regarding Claim 3, Ferone teaches The first vehicle of claim 1
Ferone further teaches wherein the processor is further configured to:
and perform the remedial action responsive to obtaining the confirmation,
wherein the remedial action comprises:
transmitting the charging station review to a server ([0053] When the processor 111 determines that the first vehicle 102 is unable to receive the charge, the processor 111 may send a notification over a network 104 to the server 123 indicating that the first vehicle 102 is unable to receive the charge).
Ferone explicitly does not teach generating and outputting a charging station review based on the inputs, and obtain a user confirmation.
Iwamura teaches generate a charging station review based on the inputs (see FIG.4; charging station application system collects the inputs [0115] A functional configuration of the charging station use application system 150 will be described with reference to FIG. 4. The charging station use application system 150 determines available charging stations by controlling availability of charging stations in accordance with a used time, power conditions, states of the facility (functionally normal or abnormal), for example.
The review can further include user preferences such as [0234] The charging station data selection unit 154 calculates an evaluation value S for setting the priority on the basis of a preference parameter of the EV user.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adapt the processor of Ferone to incorporate the teachings of Iwamura so as to generate a charging station review based on the real time charging statation situation. As set forth in MPEP § 2143, by combining the known review of an instance as taught by Iwamura with the processor of Ferone, one of ordinary skill would expect to achieve the predictable result of the processor generating the charging station review based on a plurality of inputs.
Ferone in view of Iwamura does not teach outputting a review confirmation to the user containing the charging station review.
Cun teaches output a review confirmation request responsive to generating the charging station review, wherein the review confirmation request comprises the charging station review and obtain a confirmation from a user responsive to outputting the review confirmation request ([0041] The controller 106 processes the charging information from the charging station 200. The controller 106 may prompt the operator, such as at the user interface 130, to select charging characteristics at 306, which may be based on the charging information from the charging station 200 and/or based on other charging information from the EV 100. For example, the user interface 130 may display one or more prompts on the display 132 that allow the operator to select charging characteristics to control the charging operation.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adapt the processor of Ferone in view of Iwamura to incorporate the teachings of Cun so as to include the user interface to have user interaction. Doing so would allow improvement for functions related to vehicles (Cun [0050] the operator does not necessarily have to return to the EV to make the selections).
Regarding claim 11, Ferone in view of Iwamura teaches the first vehicle of claim 10,
Ferone teaches wherein the processor is further configured to:
output an (review confirmation request is send a notification [0057] When the processor 111 determines that the problem exists at the first vehicle 102, such as the problem with the charging port 115, the processor 111 may send a notification to a device associated with an occupant of the first vehicle 102, such as a mobile device 118.),
and transmit the error notification responsive to obtaining the confirmation (a notification is an “error notification” [0056] The processor 111 of the first vehicle 102 may transmit a notification over the network 104 to the processor 131 of the second vehicle 106, wherein the notification includes the identified problem. The processor 131 of the second vehicle 106 may receive the notification over the network 104 and attempt to confirm the problem identified by the first vehicle 102.),
Ferone teaches a charger at the charging station not working but doesn’t teach an identifier information and an issue type associated with the at least one charger; obtain a confirmation from a user responsive to outputting the issue type confirmation request.
Iwamura teaches an identifier information and an issue type associated with the at least one charger ([0145] The charging station identification code is information for uniquely identifying each charging station in the managed region.
[0146] The use identification code is information indicating the use state of the charging station. The use state includes the operation state, the non-operation state, an unavailable state, and the like.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adapt the processor of Ferone to incorporate the teachings of Iwamura so as to include charging station issue types. As set forth in MPEP § 2143, by combining the known technique of identifier information and issue types as taught by Iwamura with the processor of Ferone, one of ordinary skill would expect to achieve the predictable result of the processor able determine an issue type and an identifier information with the charger and provide actions such as a confirmation request and transferring error notification based on it.
Ferone in view of Iwamura does not explicitly teach obtain a confirmation from a user responsive to outputting the issue type confirmation request.
Cun teaches obtain a confirmation from a user responsive to outputting the issue type confirmation request ([0041] The controller 106 processes the charging information from the charging station 200. The controller 106 may prompt the operator, such as at the user interface 130, to select charging characteristics at 306, which may be based on the charging information from the charging station 200 and/or based on other charging information from the EV 100. For example, the user interface 130 may display one or more prompts on the display 132 that allow the operator to select charging characteristics to control the charging operation.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adapt the processor of Ferone in view of Iwamura to incorporate the teachings of Cun so as to include the user interface to have user interaction. Doing so would allow improvement for functions related to vehicles (Cun [0050] the operator does not necessarily have to return to the EV to make the selections).
Regarding Claim 16, Ferone teaches The method of claim 14 further comprising:
Ferone further teaches performing the remedial action responsive to obtaining the confirmation, wherein the remedial action comprises
transmitting the charging station review to a server ([0053] When the processor 111 determines that the first vehicle 102 is unable to receive the charge, the processor 111 may send a notification over a network 104 to the server 123 indicating that the first vehicle 102 is unable to receive the charge).
Ferone explicitly does not teach generating and outputting a charging station review based on the inputs, and obtain a user confirmation.
Iwamura teaches generate a charging station review based on the inputs (see FIG.4; charging station application system collects the inputs [0115] A functional configuration of the charging station use application system 150 will be described with reference to FIG. 4. The charging station use application system 150 determines available charging stations by controlling availability of charging stations in accordance with a used time, power conditions, states of the facility (functionally normal or abnormal), for example.
The review can further include user preferences such as [0234] The charging station data selection unit 154 calculates an evaluation value S for setting the priority on the basis of a preference parameter of the EV user.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adapt the processor of Ferone to incorporate the teachings of Iwamura so as to generate a charging station review based on the real time charging statation situation. As set forth in MPEP § 2143, by combining the known review of an instance as taught by Iwamura with the processor of Ferone, one of ordinary skill would expect to achieve the predictable result of the processor generating the charging station review based on a plurality of inputs.
Ferone in view of Iwamura does not teach outputting a review confirmation to the user containing the charging station review and obtaining a confirmation from the said user.
Cun teaches output a review confirmation request responsive to generating the charging station review, wherein the review confirmation request comprises the charging station review and obtain a confirmation from a user responsive to outputting the review confirmation request ([0041] The controller 106 processes the charging information from the charging station 200. The controller 106 may prompt the operator, such as at the user interface 130, to select charging characteristics at 306, which may be based on the charging information from the charging station 200 and/or based on other charging information from the EV 100. For example, the user interface 130 may display one or more prompts on the display 132 that allow the operator to select charging characteristics to control the charging operation.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adapt the processor of Ferone in view of Iwamura to incorporate the teachings of Cun so as to include the user interface to have user interaction. Doing so would allow improvement for functions related to vehicles (Cun [0050] the operator does not necessarily have to return to the EV to make the selections).
Claims 4, 7, 8, 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ferone (US 20250256611 A1), in view of Matsumoto et al. (US 20240037589 A1, herein Matsumoto), and further in view of Flasher et al. (US 20190208386 A1, herein Flasher).
Regarding claim 4, Ferone teaches the first vehicle of claim 1,
Ferone doesn’t explicitly teach wherein the predefined type is a first predefined type when the processor determines that all chargers at the charging station are occupied.
Matsumoto teaches wherein the predefined type is a first predefined type when the [server] (see FIG. 1, 2; “congestion” corresponds to a scenario where “all chargers are occupied” [0043] Specifically, as illustrated in FIG. 2, the server 100 (communication unit 103) acquires position information from each of the electrified vehicles 10 in response to the electric power control request (requisition) through communication. Also, the processor 101 calculates the number of electrified vehicles 10 within a radius R (e.g., 100 m) from the EVSE unit 20A, for example, based on the position information that is acquired. The processor 101 (determination unit 101a) then determines that congestion is occurring at the EVSE unit 20A when the calculated number of vehicles is no less than a predetermined threshold value (e.g., 10 vehicles).)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adapt the vehicle of Ferone to incorporate the teachings of Matsumoto so as to include defining a predefined type to be an instance of when the charging stations are all occupied. This would allow for reducing the congestion of one charging station and allow more users to charge their vehicles (Matsumoto, [0011] and [0015]).
Matsumoto does not explicitly teach the processor determining the charging station is preoccupied.
Flasher teaches the advantages of having a decentralized system over a centralized system ([0004] Conventionally, the collection and analysis of such “Big Data” has been centralized. Various centralized solutions have been proposed to utilize data from vehicles. However, the centralized approaches have proven to be inflexible and cumbersome, often resulting in bottlenecks depending on the amount of data and analysis involved. Therefore, there is a need for a more flexible system for collecting and analyzing real-time data from vehicles, and also for allowing multiple vehicles to share critical data through a more streamlined communication network.
[0016] A dynamic and decentralized technique for implementing a system of Internet of Things (IoT) on vehicles is provided. The technique facilitates communications within a vehicle, between vehicles, and between vehicles and data centers.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adapt the processor of Ferone in view of Matsumoto to incorporate the teachings of Flasher so as to include decentralized system. As set forth in MPEP § 2143, by combining the known technique of a decentralized system as taught by Flasher with the processor of Ferone in view of Matsumoto, one of ordinary skill would expect to achieve the predictable result of a decentralized decision-making approach that would allow the processor to also make determinations instead of just the server.
Regarding claim 7, Ferone in view of Matsumoto in view of Flasher teaches the first vehicle of claim 4,
Ferone teaches wherein the processor performs the remedial action by outputting a recommendation for a different charging station in a route of the first vehicle (FIG. 2D [0073] wherein, in response to determining that the first vehicle is unable to receive the charge, sending to the first vehicle a location of an alternate charging station that can provide a charge to the first vehicle 247D)
when the predefined type is the first predefined type (Matsumoto [0007] predefined type is when there is a congestion at the charging stations (charging stations are all occupied)).
Regarding claim 8, Ferone in view of Matsumoto in view of Flasher teaches the first vehicle of claim 7,
wherein the processor is further configured to output information associated with one or more incentives for an owner associated with the first vehicle when the predefined type is the first predefined type (Matsumoto [0006] a setting unit that sets an incentive for each of the electrified vehicles to perform the electric power control at the second charging station when the determination unit determines that congestion is occurring at the first charging station).
Regarding claim 17, Ferone teaches the method of claim 14,
Ferone further teaches
wherein performing the remedial action comprises
outputting a recommendation for a different charging station (FIG. 2D [0073] wherein, in response to determining that the first vehicle is unable to receive the charge, sending to the first vehicle a location of an alternate charging station that can provide a charge to the first vehicle 247D).
Ferone teaches recommending a different charging station but doesn’t explicitly state it is “in route of “
Matsumoto teaches in route of (in route of is interpreted as “closest to the first charging station” [0011] When the determination unit determines that congestion is occurring at the first charging station, the setting unit sets the incentive to perform electric power control at the second charging station that is closest to the first charging station out of the second charging stations. According to this configuration, the time necessary to go from the first charging station to the second charging station is shortened.)
For the purposes of examination in route of is interpreted as a nearby (closest) charging station. It is mentioned in the specification that [0033] “the server 202 may be associated with a firm that manages/tracks availability status of each charger of a plurality of charging stations (including the charging station 104)”. The specification further states [0031] “the server 202 may be configured to recommend”. The firm managing a plurality of charging stations as well as the server (which recommends the charging station based on the inputs) indicates the second charging station recommendation will be at a close proximity to the first charging station.
Matsumoto teaches when the predefined type is the first predefined type when all chargers at the charging station are occupied (Matsumoto [0007] “when congestion is occurring at the first charging station” is interpreted as “when all the chargers at the charging station are occupied”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adapt the vehicle of Ferone to incorporate the teachings of Matsumoto so as to include reducing time finding a different charging station. Doing so would allow finding a new charging station while still maintaining the said route (Matsumoto [0011] the time necessary to go from the first charging station to the second charging station is shortened).
Claims 5, 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ferone et al. (US 20250256611 A1), in view of Matsumoto (US 20240037589 A1), in further view of Flasher (US 20190208386 A1), and further in view of Kim et al. (US 20250091460 A1, herein Kim).
Regarding claim 5, Ferone in view of Matsumoto in view of Flasher teaches the first vehicle of claim 4,
Ferone teaches wherein the processor is further configured to:
wherein the processor performs the remedial action by transmitting a vehicle parking adjustment request to a user device associated with an owner of the second vehicle or an error notification to a server (a notification is an “error notification” [0056] The processor 111 of the first vehicle 102 may transmit a notification over the network 104 to the processor 131 of the second vehicle 106, wherein the notification includes the identified problem. The processor 131 of the second vehicle 106 may receive the notification over the network 104 and attempt to confirm the problem identified by the first vehicle 102.)
Ferone doesn’t explicitly teach determine that a charger at the charging station is occupied by a second vehicle that is not getting charged at the charger or is charged to a predefined state of charge (SOC) level when the predefined type is the first predefined type; wherein the processor performs the remedial action responsive to determining that the charger is occupied by the second vehicle.
Kim teaches determine that a charger at the charging station is occupied by a second vehicle that is not getting charged at the charger ([0047] According to an embodiment, when the user is not present in the vehicle when charging of the vehicle is stopped) or is charged to a predefined state of charge (SOC) level (target charge is predefined state of charge [0027] According to an embodiment, the preset condition may include at least one of a case when charging of the vehicle reaches a target charge and is complete, a case when a certain time has elapsed after charging is completed, a case when the vehicle in a standby state after charging is complete is present, and a condition set by a user.) ([0047] the processor may receive information about a standby location in the charging station and a driving path to the standby location from the server, and when a movement request to the vehicle is received from a pre-authenticated user terminal). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adapt the processor of Ferone to incorporate the teachings of Kim so as to include an instance of a processor performing a set/predefined action. Doing so would allow (Kim [0053] vehicles being charged and chargers in a charging station may be managed, and charging-related services as well as charging-related controls may be easily provided.)
Kim does not teach when the predefined type is the first predefined type.
Matsumoto teaches when the predefined type is the first predefined type (see FIG. 1, 2; “congestion” is “all chargers are occupied” [0043] Specifically, as illustrated in FIG. 2, the server 100 (communication unit 103) acquires position information from each of the electrified vehicles 10 in response to the electric power control request (requisition) through communication. Also, the processor 101 calculates the number of electrified vehicles 10 within a radius R (e.g., 100 m) from the EVSE unit 20A, for example, based on the position information that is acquired. The processor 101 (determination unit 101a) then determines that congestion is occurring at the EVSE unit 20A when the calculated number of vehicles is no less than a predetermined threshold value (e.g., 10 vehicles).).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the situation of Ferone in view of Kim (when the charging station is occupied by a second vehicle that is not charging or reached a state of charge) to incorporate an instance of stated in Matsumoto (all charging stations are congested). As set forth in MPEP § 2143, by combining the known situation of Ferone in view of Kim and the specific instance of Matsumoto, one of ordinary skill would expect to achieve the predictable result of an instance mentioned in claim 5.
Matsumoto does not teach the processor configuring the actions (determining the first predefined type).
Flasher teaches the advantages of having a decentralized system over a centralized system ([0004] Conventionally, the collection and analysis of such “Big Data” has been centralized. Various centralized solutions have been proposed to utilize data from vehicles. However, the centralized approaches have proven to be inflexible and cumbersome, often resulting in bottlenecks depending on the amount of data and analysis involved. Therefore, there is a need for a more flexible system for collecting and analyzing real-time data from vehicles, and also for allowing multiple vehicles to share critical data through a more streamlined communication network.
[0016] A dynamic and decentralized technique for implementing a system of Internet of Things (IoT) on vehicles is provided. The technique facilitates communications within a vehicle, between vehicles, and between vehicles and data centers.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adapt the processor of Ferone in view of Kim and in view of Matsumoto to incorporate the teachings of Flasher so as to adapt the decentralized system. As set forth in MPEP § 2143, by combining the known technique of a decentralized system (vehicle to vehicle/ vehicle to user) as taught by Flasher with the processor of Ferone in view of Matsumoto in view of Kim, one of ordinary skill would expect to achieve the predictable result of processor performing all the actions in claim 5.
Regarding claim 6, Ferone in view of Matsumoto in view of Kim and in view of Flasher teaches the first vehicle of claim 5
Kim further teaches wherein the second vehicle is configured to autonomously move and park at a different location in the charging station when the owner of the second vehicle confirms the vehicle parking adjustment request ([0047] the vehicle may be moved along the driving path to the standby location under control by the server.).
Claims 9, 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ferone (US 20250256611 A1), in view of Kinsey et al. (US 20220144110 A1), in view of in view of Flasher (US 20190208386 A1) and further in view of Kim (US 20250091460 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Ferone teaches The first vehicle of claim 1 but does not teach:
Kinsey teaches wherein the predefined type is a second predefined type when the processor determines that a tire associated ([0088] For example, an external object (e.g., a shopping cart, a tire, a package, etc.) may be on the charging cable 102),
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adapt the processor of Ferone to incorporate the teachings of Kinsey so as to include defining a predefined type to be an instance of a vehicle is parked on the charging chord of a charger. Doing so would allow (see Kinsey [0008] reduce the need for repairing charging cables by ensuring that they are properly returned to a charging station.
However, the combination of Ferone and Kinsey do not teach: the processor performing the remedial action by transmitting
Flasher teaches the processor performing the remedial action by transmitting([0016] A dynamic and decentralized technique for implementing a system of Internet of Things (IoT) on vehicles is provided. The technique facilitates communications within a vehicle, between vehicles, and between vehicles and data centers.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the processor of Ferone in view of Kinsey to incorporate the advantages of a distributed system over a centralized system of Flasher. Doing so would allow the processor to transmit information ([0004] Conventionally, the collection and analysis of such “Big Data” has been centralized. Various centralized solutions have been proposed to utilize data from vehicles. However, the centralized approaches have proven to be inflexible and cumbersome, often resulting in bottlenecks depending on the amount of data and analysis involved. Therefore, there is a need for a more flexible system for collecting and analyzing real-time data from vehicles, and also for allowing multiple vehicles to share critical data through a more streamlined communication network.)
Ferone in view of Kinsey and Flasher doesn’t explicitly teach transmitting a small vehicle movement request to the third vehicle.
Kim teaches performs the remedial action by transmitting a small vehicle movement request to the third vehicle or a user device associated with an owner of the third vehicle when the predefined type is the second predefined type (see FIG. 17; the vehicle at the charging station is “the third vehicle” [0047] According to an embodiment, when the user is not present in the vehicle when charging of the vehicle is stopped, the processor may receive information about a standby location in the charging station and a driving path to the standby location from the server, and when a movement request to the vehicle is received from a pre-authenticated user terminal, the processor may transmit a control right to control the vehicle to the server, and the vehicle may be moved along the driving path to the standby location under control by the server.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adapt the instance of a car parked on the charging chord of Ferone in view of Kinsey to incorporate the teachings of Kim so as to include a vehicle movement request. As set forth in MPEP § 2143, by combining the known technique of vehicle movement request as taught by Kim with the instance of Ferone in view of Kinsey, one of ordinary skill would expect to achieve the predictable result of a vehicle movement request at an instance when another car is parked on the charging chord.
Regarding claim 18, Ferone teaches The method of claim 14 but doesn’t teach:
Kinsey teaches wherein the predefined type is a second predefined type when a tire ([0088] For example, an external object (e.g., a shopping cart, a tire, a package, etc.) may be on the charging cable 102),
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adapt the processor of Ferone to incorporate the teachings of Kinsey so as to include defining a predefined type to be an instance of a vehicle is parked on the charging chord of a charger. Doing so would allow (see Kinsey [0008] reduce the need for repairing charging cables by ensuring that they are properly returned to a charging station.
However, the combination of Ferone and Kinsey do not teach: the processor performing the remedial action by transmitting
Flasher teaches the processor performing the remedial action by transmitting ([0016] A dynamic and decentralized technique for implementing a system of Internet of Things (IoT) on vehicles is provided. The technique facilitates communications within a vehicle, between vehicles, and between vehicles and data centers.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the processor of Ferone in view of Kinsey to incorporate the the advantages of a distributed system over a centralized system of Flasher. Doing so would allow the processor to transmit information ([0004] Conventionally, the collection and analysis of such “Big Data” has been centralized. Various centralized solutions have been proposed to utilize data from vehicles. However, the centralized approaches have proven to be inflexible and cumbersome, often resulting in bottlenecks depending on the amount of data and analysis involved. Therefore, there is a need for a more flexible system for collecting and analyzing real-time data from vehicles, and also for allowing multiple vehicles to share critical data through a more streamlined communication network.)
Ferone in view of Kinsey and Flasher doesn’t explicitly teach wherein performing the remedial action comprises transmitting a small vehicle movement request to the second vehicle or a user device associated with an owner of the second vehicle when the predefined type is the second predefined type.
Kim teaches wherein performing the remedial action comprises
transmitting a small vehicle movement request to the second vehicle or a user device associated with an owner of the second vehicle when the predefined type is the second predefined type (see FIG. 17; the vehicle at the charging station is “the third vehicle” [0047] According to an embodiment, when the user is not present in the vehicle when charging of the vehicle is stopped, the processor may receive information about a standby location in the charging station and a driving path to the standby location from the server, and when a movement request to the vehicle is received from a pre-authenticated user terminal, the processor may transmit a control right to control the vehicle to the server, and the vehicle may be moved along the driving path to the standby location under control by the server.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adapt the instance of a car parked on the charging chord of Ferone in view of Kinsey to incorporate the teachings of Kim so as to include a vehicle movement request. As set forth in MPEP § 2143, by combining the known technique of vehicle movement request as taught by Kim with the instance of Ferone in view of Kinsey, one of ordinary skill would expect to achieve the predictable result of a vehicle movement request at an instance when another car is parked on the charging chord.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20250256611 A1: Electric vehicle charging status information (vehicles evaluating status information about the charging station)
US 20240037589 A1: Server and system (server maintaining multiple charging stations)
US 20220144110 A1: System and methods for retracting a charging cable of an electric vehicle charging station (detects external objects are within a predefined region)
US20150298565A1: Charging support system and charging support method for electric vehicle (guiding an electric vehicle to a station without it stopping due to battery exhaustion)
US 20190208386 A1: Methods and systems for vehicle based internet of things (advantages of decentralized server (vehicle to vehicle communication) over a centralized server)
US 20180290551 A1: Vehicle architectures, devices, and control algorithms for managing wireless vehicle charging (constant monitoring before and during charging to update the vehicle with the “current” situation)
US 20250091460 A1: Digital twin-based charging station control system (vehicle to vehicle communication to perform vehicle movement request when a vehicle is unnecessarily occupying a charging station)
US 20150321570 A1: Electric Vehicle Charging Control System (user interface is interactive reducing congestion at a charging station).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jason Choi whose telephone number is (571)270-0512. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00-5:00 EST.
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, Robert Fennema can be reached at (571)272-2748. 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.
/J.J.C./Examiner, Art Unit 2117
/ROBERT E FENNEMA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2117
Prosecution Insights