DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
2. Claims 10, 11, 14, and 16 are objected to because of the following informalities:
a) In claim 10 line 3, please change: "collecting usage data of from the plurality of charging stations" to --collecting usage data of the plurality of charging stations--.
b) In claim 10 lines 8-10, please change:
"determining a malfunction of one of the plurality of charging stations responsive to at least one usage parameter, comprised by the usage data, of one of the plurality of charging stations a charging station is outside a set target range" to
--determining a malfunction of one of the plurality of charging stations responsive to at least one usage parameter, comprised by the usage data, of one of the plurality of charging stations if a charging station is outside a set target range--.
c) In claim 10 lines 11-14, please change: "wherein at least two of the plurality of charging stations stationed in a set geographical area are assigned to a common charging station cluster and the set target range is derived from usage data of at least one charging station of the at least two of the plurality of charging stations of the common charging cluster" to --wherein at least two of the plurality of charging stations stationed in a set geographical area are assigned to a common charging station cluster and the set target range is derived from usage data of at least one charging station of the at least two of the plurality of charging stations of the common charging station cluster--.
d) Please insert a period at the end of claim 10.
e) In claim 11 lines 1-2, please change:
"The method of claim 10, the reference charging station comprises a group of reference charging stations considered setting the target range," to
--The method of claim 10, wherein the reference charging station comprises a group of reference charging stations considered for setting the target range,--.
f) In claim 14 line 3, please change:
"part of the common charging cluster" to --part of the common charging station cluster--.
g) In claim 16 lines 1-3, please change:
"The method of claim 10, wherein only charging stations of the plurality of charging stations having a matching charging interface type matches included in the common charging cluster" to
--The method of claim 10, wherein only charging stations of the plurality of charging stations having a matching charging interface type are included in the common charging station cluster--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
3. 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 10-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
In view of the new 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (Federal Register Vol. 84, No. 4, January 7, 2019), the Examiner has considered the claims and has determined that under step 1, claims 10-18 are to a process. Next under the new step 2A prong 1 analysis, the claims are considered to determine if they recite an abstract idea (judicial exception) under the following groupings: (a) mathematical concepts, (b) certain methods of organizing human activity, or (c) mental processes. The independent claim contains at least the following bolded limitations (see representative independent claims) that fall into the grouping of mathematical concepts and/or mental processes:
10. A method for determining a defective charging station of a plurality of charging stations for battery-powered vehicles, the method comprising:
collecting usage data of from the plurality of charging stations;
transmitting, by the plurality of charging stations to a central computing unit, the collected usage data; analyzing, by the central computing unit, the usage data transmitted by the plurality of charging stations; and determining a malfunction of one of the plurality of charging stations responsive to at least one usage parameter, comprised by the usage data, of one of the plurality of charging stations a charging station is outside a set target range,
wherein at least two of the plurality of charging stations stationed in a set geographical area are assigned to a common charging station cluster and the set target range is derived from usage data of at least one charging station of the at least two of the plurality of charging stations of the common charging cluster, wherein the at least one charging station is classified as a reference charging station.
The limitations of "determining a defective charging station of a plurality of charging stations for battery-powered vehicles" describes a mental process to make an observation or judgement of a data-based condition of a charging station based on the analysis of data. The limitations of "analyzing…the usage data" describes a mental process to evaluate data if the analysis is basic (such as comparisons or judgments), or could amount to an mathematical concept if the analysis of data requires mathematical calculations to determine an analysis result The limitations of "determining a malfunction of one of the plurality of charging stations responsive to at least one usage parameter, comprised by the usage data, of one of the plurality of charging stations a charging station is outside a set target range," amounts to a mental process to compare usage data to a set target range to determine a comparison result that indicates whether a malfunction is present. The limitations of "wherein at least two of the plurality of charging stations stationed in a set geographical area are assigned to a common charging station cluster and the set target range is derived from usage data of at least one charging station of the at least two of the plurality of charging stations of the common charging cluster, wherein the at least one charging station is classified as a reference charging station" amounts to a mental process to organize and classify data in the grouping of charging stations into a common charging station cluster and the assigning of a reference charging station, as well as a mathematical concept to calculate the set target range based on the combined data of at least two of the plurality of charging stations. It is important to note that a mathematical concept need not be expressed in mathematical symbols, because "[w]ords used in a claim operating on data to solve a problem can serve the same purpose as a formula."(see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) I.).
Next in step 2A prong 2, the independent claim is analyzed to determine whether there are additional elements or combination of elements that apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception such that it is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception, in order to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. These limitations have been identified and underlined above, and are not indicative of integration into a practical application because: (1) the limitations of "collecting usage data of from the plurality of charging stations" and "transmitting, by the plurality of charging stations…the collected usage data" amount to adding insignificant extra-solution data gathering activity to the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(g)) to collect the necessary data; and (2) the limitations of "a central computing unit," and "by the central computing unit" amount to mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Next in step 2B, the independent claim is considered to determine if it recites additional elements that amount to an inventive concept (“significantly more”) than the recited judicial exception.
These limitations have been identified and are similarly underlined above, and do not amount to an inventive concept ("significantly more") because the limitations of "collecting usage data of from the plurality of charging stations" and "transmitting, by the plurality of charging stations…the collected usage data" amount to adding insignificant extra-solution data gathering activity to the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(g)), as such data must be gathered in any case and no particular structural arrangement (i.e., particular machine) is described. The MPEP states that when “Whether the limitation amounts to necessary data gathering and outputting, (i.e., all uses of the recited judicial exception require such data gathering or data output)”, the limitations can be mere data gathering or data output (see MPEP 2106.05(g) Insignificant Extra- Solution Activity, in particular item (3)). In addition, the limitations of "a central computing unit" and "by the central computing unit" do not amount to an inventive concept because such limitations amount to mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). The use of generic computer equipment is considered insignificant additional elements. As recited in the MPEP, 2106.07(b), merely adding a generic computer, generic computer components, or a programmed computer to perform generic computer functions does not automatically overcome an eligibility rejection (see Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2359-60, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1984 (2014). See also OIP Techs. v. Amazon.com, 788 F.3d 1359, 1364, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093-94).
Selecting a particular generic function for computer hardware to perform (e.g., buffering content, storing and retrieving data from memory) from within a range of well- known, routine, conventional functions performed by the hardware is not significantly more, (see Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1264, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1208 (Fed. Cir. 2016)(MPEP 2106.05(a)II last paragraph).
Dependent claims 11-16 contain additional limitations that fall under the abstract idea grouping of a mental process to describe definitions of the data parameters that are looked at for carrying out the grouping/organizing of charging stations and the selection of reference charging stations. Dependent claim 17 amounts to merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)), as patents that do no more than claim the application of generic machine learning (artificial intelligence) to new data environments, without disclosing improvements to the machine learning models to be applied, are patent ineligible under § 101 (see Recentive Analytics, Inc. v. Fox Corp., 134 F.4th 1205 (Fed. Cir. 2025)). Claim 18 amounts to insignificant post-solution outputting of an analysis/calculation result, and does not provide an integration into a practical application or an inventive concept (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
4. An invention is not rendered ineligible for patent simply because it involves an abstract concept. Applications of such concepts "to a new and useful end" remain eligible for patent protection (see Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2354 (quoting Benson, 409 U.S. at 67)). However, "a claim for a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea" (see Synopsys v. Mentor Graphics Corp. _F.3d_, 120 U.S.P.Q. 2d1473 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). There needs to be additional elements or combination of additional elements in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception or render the claim as a whole to be significantly more than the exception itself in order to demonstrate “integration into a practical application” or an “inventive concept.” For instance, particular physical arrangements (particular machine) for actively obtaining the sensor data, or further physical applications (beyond mere data outputting) using the calculated information of a malfunction of a charging station to drive a transformation, change in physical operation, or repair/maintenance of a technology or technical process (such as to implement a physical fix or change in the identified defective charging station) could provide integration into a practical application to demonstrate an improvement to the technology or technical field.
Allowable Subject Matter
5. Claims 10-18 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action.
6. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
In regards to claim 10, the closest prior art Skrbic et al. (US Pat. Pub. 2020/0207236, hereinafter "Skrbic") at least teaches a method for determining a defective charging station of a plurality of charging stations for battery-powered vehicles (Skrbic Fig. 1, abstract, and paragraph [0009] teaches a method for determining defective measuring equipment at a charging station of a plurality of charging stations for battery-powered vehicles), the method comprising:
collecting usage data of from the plurality of charging stations (Skrbic Figs. 2a-2d and paragraphs [0010]-[0011] teach recording a curve of charging current (usage data) from the plurality of charging stations (2a-2c)) ;
transmitting, by the plurality of charging stations to a central computing unit, the collected usage data (Skrbic Fig. 1 and paragraph [011] and [0044] teach transmitting the collected charging current curve data from the plurality of charging stations (2a-2c) to a central backend computer 6 for subsequent evaluation);
analyzing, by the central computing unit, the usage data transmitted by the plurality of charging stations (Skrbic paragraphs [0011] and [0048] teach where the central backend computer performs an evaluation (analyzing) of the usage data transmitted by the plurality of charging stations); and
determining a malfunction of one of the plurality of charging stations responsive to at least one usage parameter, comprised by the usage data, of one of the plurality of charging stations a charging station is outside a set target range (Skrbic abstract and paragraphs [0016], [0021]-[0022], and [0024] teach determining a malfunction of one of the plurality of charging stations responsive to a collected present charging curve deviating from stored charging current curves at greater than a threshold value (outside a target range)).
7. However, claim 10 contains allowable subject matter because the closest prior art, Skrbic et al. (US Pat. Pub. 2020/02073236) fails to anticipate or render obvious a method for determining a defective charging station of a plurality of charging stations for battery-powered vehicles, the method comprising: wherein at least two of the plurality of charging stations stationed in a set geographical area are assigned to a common charging station cluster and the set target range is derived from usage data of at least one charging station of the at least two of the plurality of charging stations of the common charging cluster, wherein the at least one charging station is classified as a reference charging station, in combination with the rest of the claim limitations as claimed and defined by the Applicant. Skrbic is silent in regards to performing any grouping or clustering into a group of at least two charging stations based on geographical area, and provides no suggestion or motivation for further deriving a set target range from at least one charging station out of the at least two charging stations of a common charging cluster.
8. Dependent claims 11-18 depend from claim 10 and contain allowable subject matter for at least the same reasons as given for claim 10.
Pertinent Art
9. Applicants are directed to consider additional pertinent prior art included on the Notice of References Cited (PTOL 892) attached herewith. The Examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior art of record within the body of this action for the convenience of the Applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply. Applicant, in preparing the response, should consider fully the entire reference as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
B. Bouard et al. (US Pat. Pub. 2018/0086221) discloses Method and System for Monitoring Charging Stations. C. Rodemann et al. (US Pat. Pub. 2022/0147035) discloses Method and System for Detecting Faults in a Charging Infrastructure System for Electric Vehicles.
D. Hou et al. (US Pat. Pub. 2022/0410758) discloses Electric Vehicle Charging Management Methods and Systems.
E. Wisbrun (US Pat. Pub. 2025/0187484) discloses Adapting an Item of Property Information Relating to a Charging Process.
Conclusion
10. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL D LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-1598. The examiner can normally be reached on M to F, 9:30 am to 6 pm.
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, Arleen Vazquez can be reached at 571-272-2619. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/PAUL D LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857 6/26/2026
Prosecution Insights