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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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, 2, 17, 18, 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi et al. (US 20170299401 A1)(Hereinafter referred to as Choi) in view of Penilla et al. (US 20170169648 A1)(Hereinafter referred to as Penilla) and in further view of UIDownload.
Regarding Claim 1, Choi discloses An apparatus for energy replenishment or fueling for non-hydrocarbon fueled vehicles, comprising: (See Abstract, “The present disclosure provides charging station guide apparatus and method.” Also see [0020], “Fuel of the vehicle may be electricity or hydrogen and the vehicle may be driven by a driving motor using electric energy.” Note since the vehicle uses either electricity of hydrogen, then that implies that charging stations objects shown would be for those forms of fuel as well.
a reconfigurable display comprising a matrix (See [0061], “The display unit 163 may display information processed by the charging station guide apparatus 100. The display unit 163 may display an image according to a control of the control unit 150.” In this case, the display unit corresponds to a reconfigurable display. Note, although not explicitly stated, it is very standard to display icons placed in any manner that a user finds suitable, and one such obvious and well known arrangement is a matrix.)
graphically representing and communicating locations and energy type or refueling status of a plurality of energy dispensers for non-hydrocarbon fueled vehicles. (See [0011], “a control unit configured to generate a first display window including a vehicle object and a charging station position object . . . the charging station position object represents the charging station position information based on the GPS signal, the map information, and the charging station information.”
Lastly see [0074], “As illustrated in FIG. 3, a charging station position object 320 includes a first position object 323 representing the charging station positioned in the driving direction and a second position object 325 representing the charging station positioned out of the driving direction. In this case, sizes, forms, colors, or the like of the first position object 323 and the second position object 325, respectively may be different.”
In this case, charging station position object corresponds to representing and communicating locations of a plurality of energy dispensers for non-hydrocarbon fueled vehicles. Also, since Choi teaches that this guide apparatus is for a vehicle that uses either electricity or hydrogen (See [0020]), then the charging station position object that Choi teaches would be implied to communicate the energy type of that corresponding vehicle. Note that, although not explicitly shown, it is obvious and well-known that fueling stations have charging status information displayed to the user. For example, gas stations show the number of gallons being pumped.)
Penilla additionally and explicitly teaches graphically representing and communicating refueling status of a plurality of energy dispensers for non-hydrocarbon fueled vehicles. (See Fig. 1 teaching different color indicators which indicate the charge status (refueling status) on charging units (energy dispensers). See Figs. 2 and 3 showing a plurality of charging units with color indicators statues being connected to the internet. This shows that the charge status can be transmitted and displayed as needed.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Choi with Penilla to include different color indicators which indicate the charge status.
The motivation to combine Choi with Penilla would have been obvious as both arts are directed towards information regarding charging stations. The benefit of having the charge status indicators is that users can have an estimate of how long they have to wait before they have finished refueling.
UIDownload additionally and explicitly teaches a matrix with icons used to graphically representing and communicating information. (See Page 1 showing a matrix of icons. This teaches that a matrix of symbols is a common design choice.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Choi in view of Penilla with UIDownload to include a matrix form of display.
The motivation to combine Choi in view of Penilla with UIDownload would have been obvious as UIDownload is simply teaching a well-known design choice to display information, that of a matrix format. The benefit of using a matrix to graphically represent and communicate information would be the compactness and visually appeal of ordered icons.
Regarding Claim 2, Choi in view of Penilla and UIDownload disclose The apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the energy type is electric, and the plurality of energy dispensers provide electrical power. (See Choi [0020], “Fuel of the vehicle may be electricity or hydrogen and the vehicle may be driven by a driving motor using electric energy.”)
Regarding Claim 17, Choi in view of Penilla and UIDownload disclose The apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the matrix is displayed on a portable personal electronic device. (See Penilla [0034], “In other embodiments, users, via applications (on mobile devices or on the vehicle) can identify proximate CUs, their status, make reservations for particular CUs, and receive notifications of the progress.” Also see Figs 6-8 showing the connection between charging units and a mobile device. Note that the information on the matrix display can be considered “status” information, and thus Penilla teaches the idea of displaying such information on a portable personal electronic device. The motivation to combine would have been similar to that of Claim 1 rejection motivation.)
Regarding Claim 18, Choi in view of Penilla and UIDownload disclose A method of scheduling availability of a plurality of energy dispensers in a refueling station forecourt for non-hydrocarbon fueled vehicles, comprising: (See Choi Abstract, “The present disclosure provides charging station guide apparatus and method.” Also see Choi [0020] describing that the fuel of the vehicle may be electricity or hydrogen.)
providing a reconfigurable display comprising a matrix (See Choi [0061] teaching a display unit displaying an image according to a control unit. See UIDownload Page 1 showing a matrix of icons.)
graphically representing locations and energy type or refueling status of a plurality of energy dispensers, (See Choi [0011] teaching that a control unit can generate a charging station position object which graphically representing locations of energy dispensers. Also see Choi [0074] teaching how a charging station position object can have different shapes and sizes. Lastly see Penilla Fig. 1 teaching different color indicators which indicate the charge status (refueling status) on charging units (energy dispensers).)
thereby helping vehicle operators choose a location that improves traffic flow and reduce congestion within the forecourt. (It would be obvious that a display with information like cations and energy type or refueling status of a plurality of energy dispensers would improve traffic flow and reduce congestion within the forecourt as it can let drivers make decisions on whether they want to use specific refueling stations.
Additionally see Penilla [0052], “The indication of availability can also be transferred to the user's mobile device, to signify which CUs are available at a particular location.” Further see Penilla [0053], “For example, if particular CUs are located outside of a business, the color indicators can have various color shades. Some colors may indicated availability, in-use, reserved, out-of-service, almost done charging, etc.” Here, Penilla teaches availability information which should directly and obviously be helpful in that improving traffic flow and reducing congestion within the forecourt. The motivation to combine would have been similar to that of Claim 1 rejection motivation.)
Regarding Claim 28, Choi in view of Penilla and UIDownload disclose The method according to claim 18, further comprising displaying a symbol or alphanumeric message when one of the plurality of energy dispensers is not in use. (See Penilla [0052] and [0053] sending availability information to users for charging units when they are in-use, reserved, out-of-service, almost done charging, etc. Note even though not explicitly listed, not in use would be implied to be a part of the availability information. Also note, this information could obviously be a symbol or alphanumeric message. The motivation to combine would have been similar to that of Claim 1 rejection motivation.)
Claims 3, 9, 12, 16, 19-20, 23-24, 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi in view of Penilla and UIDownload and in further view of Saito et al. (US 20190009683 A1) (Hereinafter referred to as Saito).
Regarding Claim 3, Choi in view of Penilla and UIDownload fail to explicitly disclose The apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the matrix displays an indication of an electrical power level available from the plurality of energy dispensers.
Saito is an art that also teaches a display apparatus that communicates information regarding charging stations. (See Fig. 1 showing the plurality of energy dispensers being connected to server 20, which displays information on display panel 16.)
Saito teaches The apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the matrix displays an indication of an electrical power level available from the plurality of energy dispensers. (See Page 3 showing Table 2 which has a Column that shows each energy dispenser has Charger Output in kilowatts (kW) (indication of an electrical power level available). In combination with Choi in view of Penilla and UIDownload, it would be obvious to display this information in the matrix of the display apparatus.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Choi in view of Penilla and UIDownload with Saito to include the Charger Output in kilowatts (kW) for the plurality of energy dispensers.
The motivation to combine Choi in view of Penilla and UIDownload with Saito would have been obvious as Saito is an art within the same field of displaying information regarding a plurality of energy dispensers for non-hydrocarbon fueled vehicles. The benefit of showing Charger Output in kilowatts (kW) for each of the energy dispensers would be that it can allow a user to choose the most suitable energy dispenser in consideration for the specific parameters of their vehicle.
Regarding Claim 9, Choi in view of Penilla, UIDownload, and Saito disclose The apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the matrix displays a remaining time for of an energy storage device connected to one of the plurality of energy dispensers to reach a desired energy capacity. (See Penilla Fig. 1 teaching different color indicators which indicate the charge status (refueling status) on charging units (energy dispensers). Also see Penilla [0049], “Notifications regarding charge bank A or other charge banks, can be provided to the user as the charge levels change for the CUs. This provides a dynamic level of information that can be communicated to users regarding current state and projected states of charge.” Although Penilla doesn’t explicitly disclose that the information includes remaining time until a certain energy capacity is reached, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to also include this information when Penilla talks about “current state and projected states of charge.”
Additionally, see Saito [0018], “The required charging capacity, which is a value that is preliminarily set, may be a full charge capacity (i.e. the rated capacity), for example, or may also be a value that is set by the user of the vehicle (e.g. a capacity corresponding to 80% of the full charge capacity) . . .” In this case, Saito teaches reaching a desired energy capacity.
Lastly, see Saito Page 3 showing Table 2 which as a Column that shows Estimated charging time in hours (h). In this case, Saito directly teaches “remaining time”. The motivation to combine would have been similar to that of Claim 3 rejection motivation.)
Regarding Claim 12, Choi in view of Penilla, UIDownload, and Saito disclose The apparatus according to claim 9, wherein the matrix displays a series of changing shapes indicating the remaining time. (See Penilla Fig. 1 teaching different color indicators which indicate the charge status (refueling status) on charging units (energy dispensers). Although it’s not specifically changing shapes, it is changing color to indicate remaining time, which is a very similar idea.
Also see Saito Fig 1. showing display panel 16 which indicates charging wait times. Instead of just displaying charging wait times, it would be obvious to have the display matrix also display the remaining time. In this scenario, the changing numbers for the time would be considered as “a series of changing shapes”. The motivation to combine would have been similar to that of Claim 3 rejection motivation.)
Regarding Claim 16, Choi in view of Penilla, UIDownload, and Saito disclose The apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the matrix graphically or alphanumerically displays a timer or countdown timer indicating a delay time before delivery of energy from one of the plurality of energy dispensers may commence. (See Saito [0012], “The charging wait time calculation system 10 calculates a charging wait time for an electric vehicle 1, such as an electric car or a plug-in hybrid car, to wait for charging at a charging station 2. Also see Fig. 1 display panel 16 showing a timer which represents charging wait times. Note that charging wait time corresponds to “a delay time before delivery of energy from one of the plurality of energy dispensers may commence”. The motivation to combine would have been similar to that of Claim 3 rejection motivation.)
Regarding Claim 19, Claim 19 is similar to Claim 3 and is therefore rejected under a similar rationale as Claim 3.
Regarding Claim 20, Choi in view of Penilla, UIDownload, and Saito disclose The method according to claim 19, further comprising indicating an electrical power level available displayed in watts. (See Saito Page 3 showing Table 2 which as a Column that shows the Charger Output in kilowatts (kW). The motivation to combine would have been similar to that of Claim 3 rejection motivation.)
Regarding Claim 23, Claim 23 is similar to Claim 9 and is therefore rejected under a similar rationale as Claim 9.
Regarding Claim 24 Choi in view of Penilla, UIDownload, and Saito disclose The method according to claim 23, further comprising indicating the remaining time as a pie chart. (See Saito Fig. 1 display panel 16 showing a timer which represents charging wait times. Instead of just displaying charging wait times, it would be obvious to display the remaining time. Note using a pie chart to represent a timer is a very common and well-known idea and would be obvious to a person ordinarily skilled in the art to implement.)
Regarding Claim 31, Claim 31 is similar to Claim 16 and is therefore rejected under a similar rationale as Claim 16.
Claims 5-7, 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi in view of Penilla and UIDownload and in further view of Bauer et al. (“Energetic evaluation of hydrogen refueling stations with liquid or gaseous stored hydrogen”) (Hereinafter referred to as Bauer).
Regarding Claim 5, Choi in view of Penilla and UIDownload fail to explicitly disclose The apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the energy type is hydrogen, and the plurality of energy dispensers provide hydrogen in a form selected from a list consisting of liquid hydrogen and compressed hydrogen.
Bauer teaches The apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the energy type is hydrogen, and the plurality of energy dispensers provide hydrogen in a form selected from a list consisting of liquid hydrogen and compressed hydrogen. (See Abstract, “In the first option, the input of the refueling station is gaseous hydrogen which is compressed to final pressure, remaining in gaseous state. In the second option, the input is liquid hydrogen which is cryo-compressed directly from the liquid phase to the target pressure.” Here, gaseous hydrogen corresponds to compressed hydrogen. In this case, Bauer teaches that refueling stations do provide hydrogens in forms consisting of liquid hydrogen and compressed hydrogen. Note that although Bauer doesn’t explicitly state that these forms are selected from a list, it would have obvious to have the option selection be from a list as a list is a common and well-known way to store different options.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Choi in view of Penilla and UIDownload with Bauer to include providing hydrogen in a form selected from a list consisting of liquid hydrogen and compressed hydrogen.
The motivation to combine Choi in view of Penilla and UIDownload with Bauer would have been obvious Bauer is within the same field of non-hydrocarbon refueling stations. The benefit of having different forms of hydrogen is there are different advantages that each have over the other, see Bauer Pages 13-14 Section “Discussion”.
Regarding Claim 6, Choi in view of Penilla, UIDownload, and Bauer disclose The apparatus according to claim 5, wherein the matrix displays an indication of the form of hydrogen. (See Bauer Abstract described liquid and compressed hydrogen forms. In combination with Choi in view of Penilla and UIDownload, it would have been obvious to include these forms of hydrogen in the matrix display. Display different options for users is a common and well-known practice. The motivation to combine would have been similar to that of Claim 5 rejection motivation.)
Regarding Claim 7, Choi in view of Penilla, UIDownload, and Bauer disclose The apparatus according to claim 5, wherein the matrix displays an indication of an available pressure rating of compressed hydrogen. (See Bauer Page 2 Paragraph 2, “The existing options for onboard hydrogen storage subdivide into the options of compressed gaseous hydrogen (CGH2) at ambient temperature (either at 35 MPa or 70 MPa) and supercritical cryo-compressed1 hydrogen (CcH2) [14].” Here, Bauer theses that there are standard pressure ratings available for compressed hydrogen. In combination with Choi in view of Penilla and UIDownload, it would have been obvious to include available pressure rating of hydrogen in the matrix display. The motivation to combine would have been similar to that of Claim 5 rejection motivation.)
Regarding Claim 21, Claim 21 is similar to Claim 5 and is therefore rejected under a similar rationale as Claim 5.
Regarding Claim 22, Claim 22 is similar to Claim 7 and is therefore rejected under a similar rationale as Claim 7.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 32 allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Claim 32 recites the limitation providing a reconfigurable display comprising a matrix graphically representing locations availability status of a plurality of energy dispensers; and indicating that a first energy dispenser in the plurality of energy dispensers is unavailable until a second energy dispenser in the plurality of energy dispensers immediately forward of the first energy dispenser is occupied. Specifically, the limitation of requiring that the a first energy dispenser to be displayed to be unavailable until a second energy dispenser immediately forward of the first energy dispenser is occupied is what renders the claim novel and non-obvious as the prior art of record does not disclose or render obvious, the combination of elements recited in the claims as a whole.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THANG G HUYNH whose telephone number is (571)272-5432. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thu 7:30am-4:30pm EST | Fri 7:30am-11:30am 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, Kee Tung can be reached at (571)272-7794. 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.
/T.G.H./Examiner, Art Unit 2611
/KEE M TUNG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2611