DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 03/10/2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
This action is responsive to Applicant’s claims filed 03/10/2026.
Claims 1-16 are currently pending and have been examined here.
Claims 1 and 15-16 have been amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues, on pages 8-9, that the Kim reference of record fails to teach a threshold activity based on a number of occupied chargers. Examiner respectfully notes that Nikulin and Yenamandra teach this element.
Applicant argues that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated to combine Kim with Nikulin since Kim’s teachings relate to vehicle specific conditions for changing routing, while Nikulin’s are based on charging station conditions. Examiner respectfully disagrees, notes that the two are in the same field of endeavor, solve similar problems, and notes that a motivation to combine the two references has been given. Applicant’s arguments are therefore unpersuasive.
Applicant next argues that Yenamandra fails to teach determining a level of activity based on charger occupancy. Examiner respectfully disagrees, and notes that Nikulin already teaches a threshold level of activity comprising a waiting time (based on all charging stations being occupied) comparison, but does not appear to explicitly teach that the system is aware of the number of chargers that are actually occupied to create the wait time at the charging stations. Yenamandra teaches the modification of such so that the system is aware of the number of charging posts that are occupied. Thus, Nikulin in view of Yenamandra teaches modification of the route when a criterion of a level of activity (all chargers being occupied creating a sufficient wait time) based on a number of occupied chargers is greater than a threshold level of activity.
Applicant's arguments, see pages 7-8 of Applicant’s Response filed 03/10/2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues, on page 10, that the claims recite the automated replacement of destinations along a route using a mapping application which renders the categorization of the claims as reciting an abstract idea improper. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner respectfully notes that the human mind could indeed detect an event, change an intended destination, and determine and display a new route using pen and paper along with simple observation, evaluation and judgment. Examiner respectfully notes that the use of an application to display the route and the automated switching of destinations amount to the mere generic computer implementation of the abstract ideas recited. Applicant’s arguments are therefore unpersuasive.
Applicant argues that the claims amount to an improvement to the functioning of a device. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner respectfully notes that the claims do not improve any device itself or its functioning, but rather merely require that the device implement one or more abstract ideas thereon. Any improvement is to the abstract idea itself (the process for determining when to update routes based on factors affecting charging times), rather than to any particular computer technology or technical component. Applicant’s arguments are therefore unpersuasive.
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 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The claims are drawn to ineligible patent subject matter, because the claims are directed to a recited judicial exception to patentability (an abstract idea), without claiming something significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Claims are ineligible for patent protection if they are drawn to subject matter which is not within one of the four statutory categories, or, if the subject matter claimed does fall into one of the four statutory categories, the claims are ineligible if they recite a judicial exception, are directed to that judicial exception, and do not recite additional elements which amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 375 U.S. ___ (2014). Accordingly, claims are first analyzed to determine whether they fall into one of the four statutory categories of patent eligible subject matter. Then, if the claims fall within one of the four statutory categories, it must be determined whether the claims are directed to a judicial exception to patentability (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea). In determining whether a claim is directed to a judicial exception, the claim is first analyzed to determine whether the claim recites a judicial exception. If the claim does not recite one of these exceptions, the claim is directed to patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101. If the claim recites one of these exceptions, the claim is then analyzed to determine whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception. Claims which integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception are directed to patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101. If the claim fails to integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception, the claim is directed to an abstract idea. Finally, if the claims are directed to a judicial exception to patentability, the claims are then analyzed determine whether the claims are directed to patent eligible subject matter by reciting meaningful limitations which transform the judicial exception into something significantly more than the judicial exception itself. If they do not, the claims are not directed towards eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding independent claims 1, 15, and 16 the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories (a process, a machine, and an article of manufacture, respectively.) The claimed invention of independent claims 1, 15, and 16 is directed to a judicial exception to patentability, an abstract idea. The claims include limitations which recite elements which can be properly characterized under at least one of the following groupings of subject matter recognized as abstract ideas by MPEP 2106.04(a):
Mathematical Concepts: mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations;
Certain methods of organizing human activity: fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions); and
Mental processes: concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion)
Claims 1, 15, and 16, as a whole, recite the following limitations:
detecting. . . an event (claims 1, 15, 16; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could ______________; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial vehicle routing services would perform this step for their customers)
and in response to detecting the event: in accordance with a determination that the event satisfies one or more first criteria, including a criterion that is satisfied when a level of activity based on a number of occupied chargers associated with a first destination that is included in the determined route is greater than a threshold level of activity, wherein the first destination is associated with a preferred charging network, initiating a process to modify the determined route to replace the first destination with a second destination, different from the first destination, in the determined route, wherein the second destination is associated with the preferred charging network; (claims 1, 15, 16; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could initiate a process to modify a route based on criteria being met in this fashion; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial vehicle routing services would perform this step for their customers)
and in accordance with a determination that the event does not satisfy the one or more first criteria, forgoing the initiating of the process to modify the determined route to replace the first destination with the second destination in the determined route. (claims 1, 15, 16; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could refrain from updating a route if criteria are not met in this fashion; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial vehicle routing services would perform this step for their customers)
The above elements represent certain methods of organizing human activity, as a whole, since the claims recite a process for determining when a new destination is required and routing the vehicle accordingly, a business relation since commercial vehicle routing services would perform this step for their customers. Furthermore, as a whole, the claims recite mental processes since, but for the requirement to implement the above process on a set of generic computer components (or merely “apply” the abstract idea using these elements), the claims recite a mental process since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation and judgment could determine when a new destination is required and route a vehicle accordingly.
Moving forward, the above recited abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application.
The added limitations do not represent an integration of the abstract idea into a practical application because:
the claims represent mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, and merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
the claims merely add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (activity which can be characterized as incidental to the primary purpose or product that is merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim). See MPEP 2106.05(g) and/or
the claims represent mere general linking of the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP 2016.05(h)
Beyond those limitations which recite the abstract idea, the following limitations are added:
at an electronic device that is in communication with one or more input devices and a display generation component: (claims 1, 15, and 16; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer used as a tool in its ordinary capacity; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to a particular computer environment or field of use)
while the electronic device is providing navigation directions for a determined route using a maps application, (claims 1, 15, and 16; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer used as a tool in its ordinary capacity; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to a particular computer environment or field of use)
. . . via the one or more input devices. . . (claims 1, 15, and 16; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer used as a tool in its ordinary capacity; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to a particular computer environment or field of use)
An electronic device comprising: (claim 15; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer used as a tool in its ordinary capacity; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to a particular computer environment or field of use)
one or more processors; (claim 15; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer used as a tool in its ordinary capacity; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to a particular computer environment or field of use)
memory; (claim 15; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer used as a tool in its ordinary capacity; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to a particular computer environment or field of use)
and one or more programs, wherein the one or more programs are stored in the memory and configured to be executed by the one or more processors, the one or more programs including instructions for: (claim 15; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer used as a tool in its ordinary capacity; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to a particular computer environment or field of use)
A non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing one or more programs, the one or more programs comprising instructions, which when executed by one or more processors of an electronic device, cause the electronic device to perform a method comprising: (claim 16; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer used as a tool in its ordinary capacity; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to a particular computer environment or field of use)
The claims, as a whole, are directed to the abstract idea(s) which they recite. The claim limitations do not present improvements to another technological field, nor do they improve the functioning of a computer or another technology. Nor do the claim limitations apply the judicial exception with, or by use of a particular machine. The claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. See MPEP 2106.05(c). None of the hardware in the claims "offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking 'the use of the [method] to a particular technological environment' that is, implementation via computers” such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. See MPEP 2106.05(e); Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l (citing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 610, 611 (U.S. 2010)). Therefore, because the claims recite a judicial exception (an abstract idea) and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the claims, as a whole, are directed to the judicial exception.
Turning to the final prong of the test (Step 2B), independent claims 1, 15, and 16 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, because there are no meaningful limitations which transform the exception into a patent eligible application.
As outlined above, the claim limitations do not present improvements to another technological field, nor do they improve the functioning of a computer or another technology. Nor do the claim limitations apply the judicial exception with, or by use of a particular machine. The claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. See MPEP 2106.05(c). None of the hardware in the claims "offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking 'the use of the [method] to a particular technological environment' that is, implementation via computers” such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. See MPEP 2106.05(e); Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l (citing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 610, 611 (U.S. 2010)).
Furthermore, no specific limitations are added which represent something other than what is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in the field. See MPEP 2106.05(d). Besides performing the abstract idea itself, the generic computer components only serve to perform the court-recognized well-understood computer functions of receiving or transmitting data over a network, performing repetitive calculations, electronic record keeping, and storing and retrieving information in memory. See MPEP 2106.05(d). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. The specification details any combination of a generic computer system program to perform the method. Generically recited computer elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they would be routine in any computer implementation and because the Alice decision noted that generic structures that merely apply the abstract ideas are not significantly more than the abstract ideas. Therefore, independent claims 1, 15, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 as being directed to ineligible subject matter.
Claims 2-14, recite the same abstract idea as their respective independent claims.
The following additional features are added in the dependent claims:
Claim 2:
wherein the first destination includes a first charging station associated with a first user preference, and the second destination includes a second charging station associated with a second user preference.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation merely alters the types of destinations used in the abstract idea above and therefore further recites one or more abstract ideas for the reasons outlined above.
Claim 3:
wherein: before detecting the event, the second destination is included, and after the first destination, along the determined route, the one or more first criteria include a criterion that is satisfied when the maps application indicates a level of charge of one or more batteries of an electronic vehicle associated with the electronic device will be greater than a threshold level of charge when a location corresponding to the electronic device is estimated to reach the second destination, and the second destination is not associated with the preferred charging network.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could include a destination before detecting an event, and proceed using the level of charge as a criteria in a case where the second destination does not belong to the preferred charging network; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial vehicle routing services would perform this step for their customers.
Claim 4:
wherein the one or more first criteria include a criterion that is satisfied when the maps application indicates a location corresponding to the electronic device is within a threshold distance of the first destination.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation merely alters the types of criteria used in the abstract idea above and therefore further recites one or more abstract ideas for the reasons outlined above.
Claim 5:
wherein the process to modify the determined route includes displaying, via the display generation component, a selectable option that is selectable to initiate a process to search for the second destination.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could display a selectable option to initiate a route searching process; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial vehicle routing services would perform this step for their customers. Regarding the use of the display generation component, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer used as a tool in its ordinary capacity; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to a particular computer environment or field of use; alternatively still, using a display and selectable option amounts to the mere requirement to “apply” the abstract idea using a display.
Claim 6:
wherein the one or more first criteria include a criterion that is satisfied when the maps application indicates that an estimated level of charge of one or more batteries of an electronic vehicle associated with the electronic device will be greater than a threshold level of charge when the electronic device reaches the first destination.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation merely alters the types of criteria used in the abstract idea above and therefore further recites one or more abstract ideas for the reasons outlined above.
Claim 7:
wherein the one or more first criteria include a criterion that is satisfied when the maps application indicates that an estimated level of charge of one or more batteries associated with an electronic vehicle will be less than a threshold level of charge when the electronic device reaches the first destination.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation merely alters the types of criteria used in the abstract idea above and therefore further recites one or more abstract ideas for the reasons outlined above.
Claim 8:
wherein the one or more first criteria include a criterion that is satisfied when the maps application indicates that a travel time to traverse a respective portion of the determined route, wherein the respective portion of the determined route includes the first destination, is greater than a threshold amount of time.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation merely alters the types of criteria used in the abstract idea above and therefore further recites one or more abstract ideas for the reasons outlined above.
Claim 9:
wherein modifying the determined route to replace the first destination with the second destination includes: in accordance with a determination that the first destination has one or more first characteristics, selecting a first respective destination as the second destination, wherein the first respective destination has the one or more first characteristics;
and in accordance with a determination that the first destination has one or more second characteristics different from the one or more first characteristics, selecting a second respective destination, different from the first respective destination, as the second destination, wherein the second respective destination has the one or more second characteristics.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could select first and second destinations based on whether they have first or second characteristics; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial vehicle routing services would perform this step for their customers.
Claim 10:
further comprising: before providing the navigation directions for the determined route, detecting, via the one or more input devices, one or more inputs corresponding to a request to initiate a process to provide the navigation directions;
and in response to detecting the one or more inputs, displaying, via the display generation component, a plurality of proposed routes, including the determined route including the first destination, and a first proposed route, different from the determined route, not including the first destination.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could receive a request to provide navigation and display a set of proposed routes in response thereto; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial vehicle routing services would perform this step for their customers. Regarding the use of the input devices and the display generation component, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer used as a tool in its ordinary capacity; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to a particular computer environment or field of use; alternatively still, using a display and selectable option amounts to the mere requirement to “apply” the abstract idea using a display and input devices.
Claim 11:
wherein the first destination includes a first vehicle charging station, and the first proposed route does not include a respective vehicle charging station.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation merely alters the types of destinations and routes used in the abstract idea above and therefore further recites one or more abstract ideas for the reasons outlined above.
Claim 12:
wherein displaying the plurality of proposed routes includes displaying first information indicating a relationship between the determined route and the preferred charging network associated with a user account associated with the electronic device.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could display a relationship between the charging network and a user account; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial vehicle routing services would perform this step for their customers. Regarding the use of the display generation component, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer used as a tool in its ordinary capacity; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to a particular computer environment or field of use; alternatively still, using a display and selectable option amounts to the mere requirement to “apply” the abstract idea using a display.
Claim 13:
further comprising: while displaying a user interface of the maps application: in accordance with a determination that a user account associated with the electronic device does not satisfy one or more second criteria, different from the one or more first criteria, including a criterion that is satisfied when the user account is associated with a respective preferred charging network in the maps application, displaying, via the display generation component, a selectable option that is selectable to initiate a process to associate the user account with the respective preferred charging network in the maps application;
and in accordance with a determination that the user account associated with the electronic device satisfies the one or more second criteria, forgoing display of the selectable option that is selectable to initiate the process to associate the user account with the preferred charging network in the maps application.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could display a selectable option or not do so based on whether the user account satisfies one or more criteria; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial vehicle routing services would perform this step for their customers. Regarding the use of the user interface and display generation component, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer used as a tool in its ordinary capacity; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to a particular computer environment or field of use; alternatively still, using a display and selectable option amounts to the mere requirement to “apply” the abstract idea using a display.
Claim 14:
wherein the selectable option that is selectable to initiate the process to associate the user account with the preferred charging network is displayed concurrently with a user interface of the maps application that includes a representation of a map.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could display this information concurrently; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial vehicle routing services would perform this step for their customers. Regarding the use of the user interface and display generation component, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer used as a tool in its ordinary capacity; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to a particular computer environment or field of use; alternatively still, using a display and selectable option amounts to the mere requirement to “apply” the abstract idea using a display.
The above limitations do not represent a practical application of the recited abstract idea. The claim limitations do not present improvements to another technological field, nor do they improve the functioning of a computer or another technology. Nor do the claim limitations apply the judicial exception with, or by use of a particular machine. The claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. See MPEP 2106.05(c). None of the hardware in the claims "offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking 'the use of the [method] to a particular technological environment' that is, implementation via computers” such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. See MPEP 2106.05(e); Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l (citing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 610, 611 (U.S. 2010)). Therefore, because the claims recite a judicial exception (an abstract idea) and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the claims are also directed to the judicial exception.
Furthermore, the added limitations do not direct the claim to significantly more than the abstract idea. No specific limitations are added which represent something other than what is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in the field. See MPEP 2106.05(d). Accordingly, none of the dependent claims 2-14, individually, or as an ordered combination, are directed to patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Please see MPEP §2106.05(d)(II) for a discussion of elements that the Courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, conventional, activity in particular fields.
Please see MPEP §2106 for examination guidelines regarding patent subject matter eligibility.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-4 and 6-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nikulin et. al. (U.S. PG Pub. No. 20180143029; hereinafter "Nikulin") in view of Kim et al. (U.S. PG Pub. No. 20210389144; hereinafter "Kim") further in view of Yenamandra et al. (U.S. PG Pub. No. 20150045985; hereinafter "Yenamandra").
As per claim 1, Nikulin teaches:
A method comprising:
Nikulin teaches a system and method for route planning while taking into account characteristics of charging stations. (Nikulin: abstract)
at an electronic device that is in communication with one or more input devices and a display generation component:
Nikulin teaches an electric device in the form of an on board computer and/or controller which is in communication with input devices via network interface 506, and is further in communication with a display 200. (Nikulin: paragraph [0065], Fig. 5)
while the electronic device is providing navigation directions for a determined route using a maps application, detecting, via the one or more input devices, an event;
Nikulin teaches an electric device in the form of an on board computer and/or controller which is in communication with input devices via network interface 506, and is further in communication with a display 200. (Nikulin: paragraph [0065], Fig. 5) Nikulin further teaches the implantation of the system and method via software applications, wherein the system may display a navigation map while en route. (Nikulin: paragraphs [0018, 25, 32, 49], Figs. 2A-2D) Nikulin further teaches that the device may receive charging station information while en route, wherein the information may comprise a change in the wait time for the charging station which is a waypoint on the route (an event), and, if such change is significant or less than that of another charging station (greater than a threshold), the route may be updated. (Nikulin: paragraph [0038, 54, 57])
With respect to the following limitation:
and in response to detecting the event: in accordance with a determination that the event satisfies one or more first criteria, including a criterion that is satisfied when a level of activity based on a number of occupied chargers associated with a first destination that is included in the determined route is greater than a threshold level of activity, wherein the first destination is associated with a preferred charging network, initiating a process to modify the determined route to replace the first destination with a second destination, different from the first destination, in the determined route, wherein the second destination is associated with the preferred charging network;
Nikulin further teaches that the device may receive charging station information while en route, wherein the information may comprise a change in the wait time for the charging station which is a waypoint on the route (an event), and, if such change is significant or less than that of another charging station (greater than a threshold), the route may be updated. (Nikulin: paragraph [0038, 54, 57]) Nikulin teaches that the potential charging stations in the route may be associated with user preferences for each, and wherein one may be chosen over another due to the user's preferences. (Nikulin: paragraphs [0033, 53]) Nikulin, however, does not appear to explicitly teach that one charging station may be preferred over another because it is in a preferred charging network, or that the change in activity level and wait time is based on a number of occupied chargers associated with a first destination.
Kim, however, teaches that preference may be given to those vehicle charging stations which are in a user's preferred charging station network when determining which charging stations to select and add to a route. (Kim: paragraphs [0280-283]) Kim teaches combining the above elements with the teachings of Nikulin for the benefit of providing a system which improves the user's overall experience and interactions with the device. (Kim: paragraph [0006])Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Kim with the teachings of Nikulin to achieve the aforementioned benefits.
Yenamandra, however, teaches that, in determining which charging station to recommend to a user, a system may be aware of the total number of charging posts available at a given charging station. (Yenamandra: paragraph [0016-18]) Thus, Nikulin, as modified by Yenamandra, teaches that the determined wait time, caused by all charging stations being occupied, may be based on a number of occupied chargers. Yenamandra further teaches combining the above elements with the teachings of Nikulin in view of Kim for the benefit of helping a user plan a trip with more confidence and reduce the user's range anxiety. (Yenamandra: paragraph [0050, 70]) Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Yenamandra with the teachings of Nikulin in view of Kim to achieve the aforementioned benefits.
Nikulin in view of Kim further in view of Yenamandra further teaches:
and in accordance with a determination that the event does not satisfy the one or more first criteria, forgoing the initiating of the process to modify the determined route to replace the first destination with the second destination in the determined route.
Nikulin further teaches that the device may receive charging station information while en route, wherein the information may comprise a change in the wait time for the charging station which is a waypoint on the route (an event), and, if such change is significant or less than that of another charging station (greater than a threshold), the route may be updated. (Nikulin: paragraph [0038, 54, 57]) In teaching that the route may be updated only if the information indicates such, Nikulin teaches that the route may not be modified if the criteria of the event is not met.
As per claim 2, Nikulin in view of Kim further in view of Yenamandra teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as outlined above, and further teaches:
wherein the first destination includes a first charging station associated with a first user preference, and the second destination includes a second charging station associated with a second user preference.
Nikulin teaches that the potential charging stations in the route may be associated with user preferences for such. (Nikulin: paragraphs [0033, 53])
As per claim 3, Nikulin in view of Kim further in view of Yenamandra teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as outlined above, and further teaches:
wherein: before detecting the event, the second destination is included, and after the first destination, along the determined route, the one or more first criteria include a criterion that is satisfied when the maps application indicates a level of charge of one or more batteries of an electronic vehicle associated with the electronic device will be greater than a threshold level of charge when a location corresponding to the electronic device is estimated to reach the second destination, and the second destination is not associated with the preferred charging network.
Nikulin teaches that the system may consider all potential charging locations (214, 215, 215, etc.) in the initial determination of the route (and therefore the second destination may be included prior to the event). (Nikulin: paragraph [0033, 53]) Nikulin further teaches that the system may use the navigation applications to locate charging stations such that the vehicle may have sufficient charge to reach the stations (greater than 0 charge when arriving at the station). (Nikulin: paragraph [0025-27], Fig. 2A-2D) Kim, as outlined above, teaches that preference may be given to those vehicle charging stations which are in a user's preferred charging station network when determining which charging stations to select and add to a route and therefore teaches that the first (initially selected location) may be withing the network, while the second may not be. (Kim: paragraphs [0280-283]) The motivation to combine Kim persists.
As per claim 4, Nikulin in view of Kim further in view of Yenamandra teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as outlined above, and further teaches:
wherein the one or more first criteria include a criterion that is satisfied when the maps application indicates a location corresponding to the electronic device is within a threshold distance of the first destination.
Kim, however, teaches that a system may search for stops that are within a predetermined distance of the current location of a vehicle when identifying locations to refuel along a route. (Kim: paragraphs [0272-273], Fig. 6I) The motivation to combine Kim persists.
As per claim 6, Nikulin in view of Kim further in view of Yenamandra teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as outlined above, and further teaches:
wherein the one or more first criteria include a criterion that is satisfied when the maps application indicates that an estimated level of charge of one or more batteries of an electronic vehicle associated with the electronic device will be greater than a threshold level of charge when the electronic device reaches the first destination.
Nikulin further teaches that the system may use the navigation applications to locate charging stations such that the vehicle may have sufficient charge to reach the stations (greater than 0 charge when arriving at the station). (Nikulin: paragraph [0025-27], Fig. 2A-2D
As per claim 7, Nikulin in view of Kim further in view of Yenamandra teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as outlined above, and further teaches:
wherein the one or more first criteria include a criterion that is satisfied when the maps application indicates that an estimated level of charge of one or more batteries associated with an electronic vehicle will be less than a threshold level of charge when the electronic device reaches the first destination.
Kim further teaches that the system may determine that another fueling stop is required upon determining that a user will reach a destination with a level of charging that is less than a threshold level of charge. (Kim: paragraph [0241]) The motivation to combine Kim persists.
As per claim 8, Nikulin in view of Kim further in view of Yenamandra teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as outlined above, and further teaches:
wherein the one or more first criteria include a criterion that is satisfied when the maps application indicates that a travel time to traverse a respective portion of the determined route, wherein the respective portion of the determined route includes the first destination, is greater than a threshold amount of time.
Nikulin further teaches that the system may determine whether or not to include a charging station (including the first station) based on whether the vehicle has enough time (whether the total time is greater than a threshold or not) to travel to the station, charge, and then still make it to an appointment on time. (Nikulin: paragraph [0036])
As per claim 9, Nikulin in view of Kim further in view of Yenamandra teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as outlined above, and further teaches:
wherein modifying the determined route to replace the first destination with the second destination includes: in accordance with a determination that the first destination has one or more first characteristics, selecting a first respective destination as the second destination, wherein the first respective destination has the one or more first characteristics;
Kim further teaches that the route may choose only those stations which are within the user's preferred charging network, and therefore teaches that the second charging station may be selected since it shares a first or second characteristic (a first or second charging network) with the first charging station. (Kim: paragraphs [0280-282, 371, 376]) The motivation to combine Kim persists.
and in accordance with a determination that the first destination has one or more second characteristics different from the one or more first characteristics, selecting a second respective destination, different from the first respective destination, as the second destination, wherein the second respective destination has the one or more second characteristics.
Kim further teaches that the route may choose only those stations which are within the user's preferred charging network, and therefore teaches that the second charging station may be selected since it shares a first or second characteristic (a first or second charging network) with the first charging station. (Kim: paragraphs [0280-282, 371, 376]) The motivation to combine Kim persists.
As per claim 10, Nikulin in view of Kim further in view of Yenamandra teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as outlined above, and further teaches:
further comprising: before providing the navigation directions for the determined route, detecting, via the one or more input devices, one or more inputs corresponding to a request to initiate a process to provide the navigation directions;
Nikulin further teaches that the system may receive, via input on a display, a request to generate the route. (Nikulin: paragraph [0042], Fig. 3)
and in response to detecting the one or more inputs, displaying, via the display generation component, a plurality of proposed routes, including the determined route including the first destination, and a first proposed route, different from the determined route, not including the first destination.
Kim further teaches a plurality of proposed routes including separate charging stops along separate routes which may be displayed to a user in response to a request for a route. (Kim: paragraph [0215-216], Fig. 6e) The motivation to combine Kim persists.
As per claim1 11, Nikulin in view of Kim further in view of Yenamandra teaches all of the limitations of claim 10, as outlined above, and further teaches:
wherein the first destination includes a first vehicle charging station, and the first proposed route does not include a respective vehicle charging station.
Nikulin further teaches that the system may derive an initial route, may check to see whether the vehicle has sufficient charge to traverse this route, and, if the vehicle does not, may suggest charging stations along the route (including the first station) for incorporation into the route. (Nikulin: paragraphs [0042, 48-49], Fig. 3)
As per claim 12, Nikulin in view of Kim further in view of Yenamandra teaches all of the limitations of claim 10, as outlined above, and further teaches:
wherein displaying the plurality of proposed routes includes displaying first information indicating a relationship between the determined route and the preferred charging network associated with a user account associated with the electronic device.
Kim further teaches that an indication of the charging network associated with the charging station may be displayed on the display. (Kim: paragraph [0230, 280-283, 370-371, Figs. 8S, 8T])
As per claim 13, Nikulin in view of Kim further in view of Yenamandra teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as outlined above, and further teaches:
further comprising: while displaying a user interface of the maps application: in accordance with a determination that a user account associated with the electronic device does not satisfy one or more second criteria, different from the one or more first criteria, including a criterion that is satisfied when the user account is associated with a respective preferred charging network in the maps application, displaying, via the display generation component, a selectable option that is selectable to initiate a process to associate the user account with the respective preferred charging network in the maps application;
Kim teaches that a determination may be made as to whether or not the user account has a pre-existing relationship with a charging station network or may be only compatible with one charging station network, and, if the user is able to select another charging station network, a user interface for selecting the preferred network may be displayed. (Kim: paragraph [0370-371, Figs. 8S, 8T) The motivation to combine Kim persists.
and in accordance with a determination that the user account associated with the electronic device satisfies the one or more second criteria, forgoing display of the selectable option that is selectable to initiate the process to associate the user account with the preferred charging network in the maps application.
Kim teaches that a determination may be made as to whether or not the user account has a pre-existing relationship with a charging station network or may be only compatible with one charging station network, and, if the user is able to select another charging station network, a user interface for selecting the preferred network may be displayed. (Kim: paragraph [0370-371, Figs. 8S, 8T, 8U) The motivation to combine Kim persists.
As per claim 14, Nikulin in view of Kim further in view of Yenamandra teaches all of the limitations of claim 13, as outlined above, and further teaches:
wherein the selectable option that is selectable to initiate the process to associate the user account with the preferred charging network is displayed concurrently with a user interface of the maps application that includes a representation of a map.
Kim teaches that a determination may be made as to whether or not the user account has a pre-existing relationship with a charging station network or may be only compatible with one charging station network, and, if the user is able to select another charging station network, a user interface for selecting the preferred network may be displayed. (Kim: paragraph [0370-371, Figs. 8S, 8T, 8U) The motivation to combine Kim persists. Nikulin further teaches that selectable lists of options regarding charging stations may be displayed concurrently with a map. (Nikulin: paragraph [0040], Fig. 2D)
As per claim 15, Nikulin in view of Kim further in view of Yenamandra teaches the limitations of these claims which are substantially identical to those of claim 1, as outlined above, and further teaches:
An electronic device comprising:
Nikulin teaches a system and method for route planning while taking into account characteristics of charging stations. (Nikulin: abstract) Nikulin teaches an electric device in the form of an on board computer and/or controller. (Nikulin: paragraph [0065], Fig. 5)
one or more processors;
Nikulin further teaches the implementation of the system and method using a processor which executes software stored in memory in order to perform the functions of the system. (Nikulin: paragraph [0018, 65], Figs. 1, 5)
memory;
Nikulin further teaches the implementation of the system and method using a processor which executes software stored in memory in order to perform the functions of the system. (Nikulin: paragraph [0018, 65], Figs. 1, 5)
and one or more programs, wherein the one or more programs are stored in the memory and configured to be executed by the one or more processors, the one or more programs including instructions for:
Nikulin further teaches the implementation of the system and method using a processor which executes software stored in memory in order to perform the functions of the system. (Nikulin: paragraph [0018, 65], Figs. 1, 5)
As per claim 16, Nikulin in view of Kim further in view of Yenamandra teaches the limitations of these claims which are substantially identical to those of claim 1, as outlined above, and further teaches:
A non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing one or more programs, the one or more programs comprising instructions, which when executed by one or more processors of an electronic device, cause the electronic device to perform a method comprising:
Nikulin teaches a system and method for route planning while taking into account characteristics of charging stations. (Nikulin: abstract) Nikulin teaches an electric device in the form of an on board computer and/or controller. (Nikulin: paragraph [0065], Fig. 5) Nikulin further teaches the implementation of the system and method using a processor which executes software stored in memory in order to perform the functions of the system. (Nikulin: paragraph [0018, 65], Figs. 1, 5)
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nikulin in view of Kim further in view of Yenamandra further in view of Horita, Yuki (U.S. PG Pub. No. 20130226441; hereinafter "Horita").
As per claim 5, Nikulin in view of Kim further in view of Yenamandra teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as outlined above, but does not appear to explicitly teach:
wherein the process to modify the determined route includes displaying, via the display generation component, a selectable option that is selectable to initiate a process to search for the second destination.
Horita, however, teaches that, in response to a trigger condition, a user may be prompted with an option to initiate a process for searching for preferred charging stations along a route. (Horita: paragraph [0134], Fig. 11) Horita teaches combining the above elements with the teachings of Nikulin in view of Kim further in view of Yenamandra for providing an improved system for supporting a user of an electrically driven vehicle which may help further reducing the risk that the user of the electric vehicle or the plug-in hybrid electric vehicle may still suffer from a battery shortage or that the remaining driving distance becomes insufficient. (Horita: paragraph [0007]) Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Horita with the teachings of Nikulin in view of Kim further in view of Yenamandra to achieve the aforementioned benefits.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EMMETT K WALSH whose telephone number is (571)272-2624. The examiner can normally be reached Mon.-Fri. 6 a.m. - 4:45 p.m..
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, Jessica Lemieux can be reached at 571-270-3445. 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.
/EMMETT K. WALSH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628