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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are indicated in the table below, along with corresponding structure and/or lack thereof:
Claim limitation
Claim Numbers
Structure (PGPUB citation)
Receiving means
11, 14
A wireless or wired receiver [0033]
Data processing means
11, 14
Programmable logic or microcontroller [0035]
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
35 USC § 101 – Eligibility
Examiner notes that although the claims are directed to data analysis, the step of optimization of a charging event, claimed in each of the independent claim 1, 14 and 16 in light of the specification refers to optimization of an actual charging of the vehicle, and thus positively recites a physical transformation.
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.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter because the computer-readable storage medium covers both non-transitory tangible media and transitory propagating signals. As such, these claims are drawn to signals per se and are not directed to one of the statutory categories of invention (See MPEP 2106.01).
A non-transitory computer readable storage medium that would permit the functionality of the program to be realized, would be directed to a product and be within a statutory category of invention. Since Applicant’s computer-readable storage medium covers both non-transitory tangible media and transitory propagating signals, amending the claims to add the limitation “non-transitory” would typically not raise the issue of new matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 7 recites “selecting the maximum power” such that the “maximum charging power is balanced between vehicles”. It appears two different means of maximum charging power are used here. One, the maximum that the vehicle can accept as in claim 6, the other, the maximum that the system is able to provide. It is unclear which takes precedence and which is being used in which instance in the claim. Examiner suggests amending claim 7 to differentiate between the “maximums”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 4-5 and 11-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Metzger US PGPUB 2019/0263286.
Regarding claims 1 and 16-17, Metzger discloses an apparatus for controlling a charging event [fig. 1, 15/40], characterized in that the apparatus is configured:
to receive data from at least two of the following types of sources:
vehicle data from a vehicle at a charging site [par. 29; identify vehicle based on vehicle data including charging profile], external data from an external source [pars. 13, 29 & 33; database 30 has charging profiles used to ID the vehicle, and is stored externally on a computer 40 which is connected via a network connection], and charging apparatus data detected by a charging apparatus [par. 29; the data from the vehicle is passed to the charging apparatus data, thus is also charging apparatus data],
to determine, during the charging event, a vehicle type of the vehicle automatically on the basis of at least two of said vehicle data, said external data, and said charging apparatus data [pars. 13, 29 & 33; based on the vehicle data from the vehicle and received at the charger and an external database 30, the vehicle type is to be determined], and to optimize, on the basis of at least the vehicle type data determined during the charging event, the charging event for at least one of the following: the vehicle [par. 18] and a charging apparatus, and
wherein the vehicle type comprises at least one of the following: a make of the vehicle [par. 14], a model of the vehicle [par. 14], or a capacity of the energy storing means of the vehicle.
Regarding claim 16, the method steps disclosed therein would have been are deemed as being inherent based on the teachings of the prior art reference(s) applied above, since the prior art of record herein is construed as teaching or suggesting all of the elements recited in the method claim, as pointed out in the above rejection of claim 1. The claim is accordingly rejected.
Regarding claim 17, the method steps would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill based on the teachings of the reference, above, as pertains to rejection of the apparatus of claim 1. Furthermore, the reference teaches a non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing instructions that when executed by a computer, perform the claimed method steps [par. 25].
Regarding claim 2, Metzger discloses wherein the vehicle data is configured to be received from the vehicle wirelessly, via a wired connection [fig. 1, par. 29, cable 13] and/or via a charging connection [fig. 1, par. 29, cable 13], and
wherein the vehicle data comprises at least one of the following: data related to a charge level of energy storing means of the vehicle, vehicle make [par. 14], vehicle model [par. 14], vehicle identification, capacity of the energy storing means of the vehicle, desired amount of energy for the vehicle, a maximum current indicated by the vehicle, voltage indicated by the vehicle, and a maximum power limit indicated by the vehicle.
Regarding claim 4, Metzger discloses wherein the external data comprises at least one of the following: weather information related to a location, road weather data, electricity price data, data related to the determined vehicle type [pars. 13, 29 & 33], statistical data related to the determined vehicle type [pars. 13, 29 & 33], traffic data, and data related to nearby charging stations.
Regarding claim 5, Metzger discloses wherein the vehicle is an electric vehicle powered at least partly by electric energy [par. 3].
Regarding claim 11, Metzger discloses wherein the apparatus comprises receiving means configured to receive said data, and data processing means configured to determine the vehicle type of the vehicle [par. 29-30 & 32-33; the charger 15/computer 40 receives data from the vehicle/charger (via sensor 21)/external data base 30 and processes it to determine the vehicle type].
Regarding claim 12, Metzger discloses wherein the apparatus is the charging apparatus, a control unit of the charging apparatus or an apparatus connected to the charging apparatus [pars. 29-30 & 32-33; all of 15/40/22/23 are part of apparatus 100 (a charging system)].
Regarding claim 13, Metzger discloses a charging apparatus comprising an apparatus according to claim 1 [pars. 29-30 & 32-33; all of 15/40/22/23 are part of apparatus 100 (a charging system)].
Regarding claim 14, Metzger discloses an arrangement for controlling a charging event [fig. 1, 15/40], characterized in that the arrangement comprises:
receiving means [fig. 1, controller of 15 or computer 40; pars. 29-30] configured to receive data from at least two of the following types of sources: vehicle data from a vehicle at a charging site [par. 29; identify vehicle based on vehicle data including charging profile], external data from an external source [pars. 13, 29 & 33; database 30 has charging profiles used to ID the vehicle, and is stored externally on a computer 40 which is connected via a network connection], and charging apparatus data detected by a charging apparatus [par. 29; the data from the vehicle is passed to the charging apparatus data, thus is also charging apparatus data], and
data processing means [fig. 1, controller of 15 or computer 40; pars. 29-30] configured to determine, during the charging event, a vehicle type of the vehicle automatically on the basis of at least two of said vehicle data, said external data, and said charging apparatus data [pars. 13, 29 & 33; based on the vehicle data from the vehicle and received at the charger and an external database 30, the vehicle type is to determine], and wherein the vehicle type comprises at least one of the following: a make of the vehicle [par. 14], a model of the vehicle [par. 14], or a capacity of the energy storing means of the vehicle.
Regarding claim 15, Metzger discloses an arrangement according to claim 14, characterized in that the apparatus is configured:
to receive data from at least two of the following types of sources: vehicle data from a vehicle at a charging site [par. 29; identify vehicle based on vehicle data including charging profile], external data from an external source [pars. 13, 29 & 33; database 30 has charging profiles used to ID the vehicle, and is stored externally on a computer 40 which is connected via a network connection], and charging apparatus data detected by a charging apparatus [par. 29; the data from the vehicle is passed to the charging apparatus data, thus is also charging apparatus data],
to determine, during the charging event, a vehicle type of the vehicle automatically on the basis of at least two of said vehicle data, said external data, and said charging apparatus data [pars. 13, 29 & 33; based on the vehicle data from the vehicle and received at the charger and an external database 30, the vehicle type is to determine], and
to optimize, on the basis of at least the vehicle type data determined during the charging event, the charging event for at least one of the following: the vehicle [par. 18] and a charging apparatus, and wherein the vehicle type comprises at least one of the following: a make of the vehicle [par. 14], a model of the vehicle [par. 14] or a capacity of the energy storing means of the vehicle.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Metzger US PGPUB 2019/0263286 in view of Nyu et al. US PGPUB 2013/0093384.
Regarding claim 3, Metzger does not explicitly disclose wherein the charging apparatus data comprises at least one of the following: temperature at the charging site, names of the detectable wireless networks, strength of the detectable wireless networks, coverage of the detectable wireless networks, the manufacturers of the detectable wireless networks, analysis information about receivers of detectable wireless networks, and analysis information about packages sent by the detectable wireless networks.
However, Nyu discloses an electric vehicle charging system wherein the charging apparatus data comprises at least one of the following: temperature at the charging site [par. 64-65, 71 77, 90, 108, 165 & 180; ambient temperature of the battery charger where vehicle battery is being charged Is sent along with other vehicle to a server which determines information about the vehicle battery (and therefore the vehicle)], names of the detectable wireless networks, strength of the detectable wireless networks, coverage of the detectable wireless networks, the manufacturers of the detectable wireless networks, analysis information about receivers of detectable wireless networks, and analysis information about packages sent by the detectable wireless networks.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Metzger to further include wherein the charging apparatus data comprises at least one of the following: temperature at the charging site
for the purpose of improving the battery deterioration calculation, as taught by Nyu (par. 77).
Claims 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Metzger US PGPUB 2019/0263286 in view of Nyu et al. US PGPUB 2013/0093384.
Regarding claims 6-8, Metzger discloses wherein the apparatus is configured to optimize the charging event for the vehicle by providing to the vehicle a maximum charging power the vehicle is capable to receive; wherein the apparatus is configured to optimize the charging event for the charging apparatus by selecting the maximum charging power for the vehicle in such a manner that the maximum charging power is balanced between vehicles simultaneously connected to the charging apparatus; wherein the maximum charging power is balanced between the vehicles simultaneously connected to the charging apparatus according to a predetermined criteria or strategy.
However, Examiner takes Official Notice that it is well known in the electric vehicle charging arts to charge multiple EVs simultaneously at their maximum possible power simultaneously at a station with multiple “dispensers” while ensuring the grid or substation is not overloaded. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kanno to further include wherein the apparatus is configured to optimize the charging event for the vehicle by providing to the vehicle a maximum charging power the vehicle is capable to receive; wherein the apparatus is configured to optimize the charging event for the charging apparatus by selecting the maximum charging power for the vehicle in such a manner that the maximum charging power is balanced between vehicles simultaneously connected to the charging apparatus and wherein the maximum charging power is balanced between the vehicles simultaneously connected to the charging apparatus according to a predetermined criteria or strategy for the purpose of charging vehicles as fast as possible without causing problems to the wider grid, and since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to apply a known technique to a known device (method, or product) which was ready for improvement in order to yield results predictable by one of ordinary skill the art. KSR International Co. v Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 127 S. Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Metzger US PGPUB 2019/0263286 in view of Peng US PGPUB 2021/0203177.
Regarding claim 9, Metzger discloses wherein the further information is based on at least one of the following: the make of the vehicle [par. 14], the model of the vehicle [par. 14], the capacity of the energy storing means of the vehicle, the data received from the vehicle during the charging event and/or the external data received during the charging event.
Metzger does not explicitly disclose wherein the apparatus is further configured to select and display further information or provide further services for a driver of the vehicle.
However, Peng discloses an electric vehicle charging system disclose wherein the apparatus is further configured to select and display further information or provide further services for a driver of the vehicle [fig. 12; pars. 137 & 145; the charging station can display a battery SOH/SOC on a display].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Metzger to further include wherein the apparatus is further configured to select and display further information or provide further services for a driver of the vehicle for the purpose of providing battery information to a consumer, as taught by Peng (pars. 135, 137 and 145).
Regarding claim 10, Metzger discloses wherein the further information or further services comprise at least one of the following: information about a condition of the vehicle, information about a condition of a battery of the vehicle [par. 16 & 30; required current/voltage is info about a condition of vehicle battery], information about a condition of the vehicle or the battery compared to data collected from other vehicles of the same vehicle type, targeted services, and a targeted advertisement.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Feldman US PGPUB 2022/0228877 discloses a system which determines the make/model of a vehicle and optimizes charging accordingly.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID V HENZE whose telephone number is (571)272-3317. The examiner can normally be reached M to F, 9am to 7pm.
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, Julian Huffman can be reached at 571-272-2147. 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.
/DAVID V HENZE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2859
