DETAILED ACTION
This is a Non-Final Office Action in response to claims filed 6/12/2024. Claims 38-57 are pending. The effective filling date is 12/12/2021.
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 .
Objection to Claim Format:
Claims 38–57 are objected to under 37 C.F.R. § 1.75(g) and MPEP § 608.01(m) because each claim limitation should end with a semicolon, except for the last, which should end with a period. Applicant is required to amend the claims accordingly.
Objection to Use of Reference Characters:
Claims 38–57 are objected to under 37 C.F.R. § 1.74 and MPEP § 608.01(m) for the improper use of reference characters in the claims. Reference characters should not appear in the claims unless necessary for clarity and then only in parentheses. Applicant is required to delete any unnecessary reference characters from the claims.
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 38-57 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 38–57 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. Independent claim 38 recites the abstract idea of collecting charging-station information, determining a probability of a vehicle operator’s intention to use a charging station, identifying the charging station, detecting relevant parameters, comparing detected data with expected charging-station information, and reporting deviations. These limitations fall within the mental-process and mathematical-concept groupings of abstract ideas under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
The additional elements, including the driver guidance system, vehicle-side and/or charging-station-side detection, charging station, server, mobile device, vehicle, computer-readable medium, and communication interfaces, merely use generic computing and communication components to implement the abstract idea in the field of electric-vehicle charging stations. The claims do not recite a specific improvement to computer functionality, vehicle technology, charging-station technology, communication protocols, or battery-charging control.
The claims therefore do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A, Prong 2, and do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea under Step 2B.
Claims 54, 55, and 57 are further rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the recited “computer-readable medium” is not limited to a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium and, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, encompasses transitory propagating signals, which are not within one of the four statutory categories of invention.
Analysis:
Step 1: Statutory Category Determination
Claim 38 recites “a method for checking charging stations…”. A method is a process which is one of the four statutory categories under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claims 54 recites “A computer-readable medium on which at least a computer program product stored…”; claim 55 recites “A computer-readable medium comprising instructions…”; claim 57 recites “A computer-readable medium on which the computer program product is stored…”.
These claims do not expressly recite a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium.
Under USPTO practice, a claim to a computer-readable medium that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, encompasses transitory propagating signals is not directed to one of the four statutory categories. See MPEP § 2106.03; In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 1356–57, 84 USPQ2d 1495, 1501–02 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
The specification does describe storage media such as: “a digital storage medium, for example a floppy disk, a DVD, a Blu-Ray disc, a CD, a ROM, a PROM, an EPROM, an EEPROM or a FLASH memory, a hard disk or other magnetic or optical memory…” See paragraph [0134].
However, the claims themselves do not expressly exclude transitory signals. The phrase “computer-readable medium” is typically considered broad enough to cover both transitory and non-transitory media unless expressly limited. The phrase “on which … is stored” provides some indication of storage, but to avoid ambiguity under Office practice, the claim should be amended to recite “non-transitory computer-readable storage medium.”
Step 1 determination for claims 54, 55, and 57: A § 101 rejection is appropriate because the claims are not expressly limited to a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium and may encompass transitory signals.
Claim 56 recites “A vehicle comprising a data processing device…” A vehicle is a machine or manufacture. Thus, claim 56 falls within a statutory category.
Step 1 determination for claim 56: Claim 56 is directed to a statutory machine/manufacture.
Step 2A, Prong 1: Judicial Exception
Under Step 2A, Prong 1 of the 2019 PEG, the issue is whether the claims recite a judicial exception, including an abstract idea.
The principal abstract-idea groupings implicated here are:
Mental processes — concepts performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion.
Mathematical concepts — calculations, probabilities, comparisons, and algorithmic determinations.
Certain methods of organizing human activity — managing user behavior, route/charging decisions, and service/resource availability.
The strongest classification is mental processes and mathematical concepts, implemented on generic computing and vehicle-network components.
Offending Clauses in Claim 38
Claim 38 (similarly claims 54-57) recites several data-gathering, data-analysis, and reporting limitations that fall within an abstract idea.
“Defining (S01) at least a relevant region”: This is an abstract data-selection or boundary-setting step. The specification describes bounding boxes, route corridors, polygons, and relevant geographic regions. At the claim level, however, this limitation broadly recites selecting or defining an area of interest. This may be performed mentally or with pen and paper by deciding which geographic area to consider. It also can be performed as generic computer data processing.
“Retrieving (S02) at least an available information of at least a charging station (3) in the relevant region”: This is data gathering. Data gathering by itself is generally treated as insignificant extra-solution activity when used in connection with an abstract analysis. See, e.g., Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353–54 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
“Determining (S03) an intention of a vehicle operator to use the charging station (3) in the relevant region, wherein a probability of an existing intention is determined from the retrieved information”: This limitation recites evaluating user behavior and determining a probability. This implicates”: a mental process, because predicting or judging whether a person intends to use a charging station can be performed mentally based on observed circumstances; and a mathematical concept, because the claim expressly recites determining a probability. The claim does not recite a specific algorithm for calculating the probability. It merely claims the result of determining a probability from retrieved information.
“Testing (S04) of a charging process if the intention of the vehicle operator to use the charging station (3) has been determined with a sufficient probability”: This limitation links the abstract determination of intent to a test of a charging process. However, the claim does not recite a particular technical testing protocol, electrical handshake, charging control sequence, or sensor operation. It broadly states that testing occurs if an intention probability threshold is met. The specification even explains that, in some embodiments, testing can be realized by merely approaching a charging station without a cable connection. See claim 42 and paragraphs [0081]–[0086]. Thus, at the claim level, this step is broad enough to cover observation of user/vehicle behavior rather than a concrete technological diagnostic test.
“Identifying (S05) the charging station (3) for which the charging process has been notified”: This is data identification/classification. Identifying an object based on available information is a mental process or generic data-processing step unless claimed with a specific technological mechanism.
“Vehicle-side and/or charging station-side detection (S06) of a at least two or at least three relevant parameters”: Data collection from a vehicle or charging station, standing alone, is data gathering. The claim does not specify the particular parameters in claim 38, nor does it require particular sensors, particular signal processing, or particular charging-control hardware.
Dependent claim 39 identifies possible parameters such as position data, dwell time, position of vehicle operator, and vehicle-specific secondary parameters. These are primarily informational parameters.
“Comparing (S07) the detected data of the at least two or at least three relevant parameters with at least an available information on the charging station (3) being used”: This is a classic abstract data-analysis step. Comparing collected data to expected data is a mental process and/or mathematical/data-processing operation. See Electric Power Group, 830 F.3d at 1353–54.
“Reporting (S08) a deviation of the collected data of the relevant parameters from the expected parameters”: Reporting results is outputting information. Merely presenting or transmitting the result of an abstract analysis is generally insignificant post-solution activity. See Electric Power Group, 830 F.3d at 1354; SAP America, Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1167–68 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
“the determining (S03) of the intention is carried out by a driver guidance system, wherein the retrieved information in step c) includes location, maximum charging power, offered plug types, maximum voltage, maximum current, access requirements, operator and electricity costs”: This limitation invokes a driver guidance system and specifies categories of data. However, the driver guidance system is used as a generic tool for performing the abstract determination, and the listed information fields are data content. Merely limiting an abstract idea to particular information content or a field of use does not remove the claim from the abstract-idea grouping.
Abstract Idea Identified
The claim recites the abstract idea of: collecting charging-station and vehicle-related information, determining/predicting a vehicle operator’s charging-station-use intention, comparing detected parameters with expected charging-station information, and reporting deviations.
This is best characterized as a combination of:
mental processes — evaluating, identifying, comparing, and reporting information regarding a charging station and user intention;
mathematical concepts — determining a probability of user intention; and
organizing human activity — managing user behavior and charging-station use based on location, cost, access requirements, and availability information.
Step 2A, Prong 1 determination for claim 38: Claim 38 recites a judicial exception, namely an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2: Integration Into a Practical Application
Because claim 38 (similarly claims 54-57) recites an abstract idea, the next issue is whether the claim integrates the exception into a practical application.
The claim broadly recites functional steps of defining, retrieving, determining, testing, identifying, detecting, comparing, and reporting.
The claim improves the quality of charging-station information and reporting of defects. That is useful, but the improvement is primarily to information accuracy and administrative/operational awareness, not necessarily to a technological process itself. Under Federal Circuit precedent, improving the content, accuracy, or availability of information is not enough where the claimed advance is collecting, analyzing, and reporting data using generic technology. See Electric Power Group, 830 F.3d at 1353–55.
Particular Machine Analysis
Claim 38 recites use of: “a driver guidance system”; “vehicle-side and/or charging station-side detection”; and “charging station.”
These are machines or components in the physical world. However, merely performing an abstract idea on or with a generic machine is insufficient unless the machine is integral to the claim and imposes meaningful limits on claim scope.
The driver guidance system is used to determine the vehicle operator’s intention. The claim does not specify a particular structure, algorithm, sensor fusion pipeline, navigation architecture, or control mechanism that improves the driver guidance system.
Similarly, the charging station and vehicle are primarily sources of data or subjects of the data comparison. The claim does not require that the charging station be controlled, reconfigured, shut down, repaired, derated, electrically tested by a particular protocol, or transformed based on the detected deviation.
Accordingly, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the driver guidance system, vehicle, and charging station appear to be generic technological environments for carrying out the abstract idea.
Step 2B: Significantly More / WURC Analysis
Because the claims recite an abstract idea and do not integrate it into a practical application, Step 2B asks whether additional elements amount to “significantly more” than the judicial exception.
The additional elements beyond the abstract idea include:
a driver guidance system;
vehicle-side and/or charging-station-side detection;
charging station;
retrieved charging-station information including: location, maximum charging power, plug types, maximum voltage, maximum current, access requirements, operator, electricity costs.
These are generic technological components and conventional data fields associated with EV charging infrastructure. The claim does not recite unconventional hardware or software. It does not require a new charging connector, new charging protocol, new battery-management circuit, new sensor, new communication protocol, or new server architecture.
Claim 38 (similarly claims 54-57) is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements apply the abstract idea using generic vehicle, charging-station, driver-guidance, and computing components without reciting a specific technological improvement or a meaningful technological implementation.
The claim appears analogous to Electric Power Group, where claims directed to collecting, analyzing, and displaying information about an electric power grid were held ineligible because they focused on information processing rather than a technological improvement to the grid or computer systems.
Here, claim 38 similarly collects, analyzes, compares, and reports information about charging stations.
WURC Factual Support from the Specification.
The specification itself provides substantial support that the additional components are conventional and generic. Generic computing units: Paragraph [0135] states: “A computing unit can be formed by a processor, a computer processor (CPU), a graphics processor (GPU), a computer, a computer system, an application-specific integrated circuit (ASIC), an integrated circuit (IC), a single-chip system (SOC), a programmable logic element or a field-programmable gate array with a microprocessor (FPGA).”
This indicates that the computing elements are generic computing hardware.
The claim’s additional elements, considered individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
The ordered combination amounts to: collect information; determine likely user intent; test or observe charging-station use; collect parameter data; compare detected data with expected data; and report deviations. This is a conventional data-processing workflow implemented in the EV charging context using generic computing and communication components. There is no claimed unconventional arrangement of components that changes the functioning of the computer, vehicle, charging station, or network.
Step 2B determination for claim 38 (similarly claims 54-57):The additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claims 38–57 are not patent-eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding Claims 39-53: the claim further narrows the abstract idea or recite additional elements previously rejected in the independent claims.
Accordingly, the claim fails to recite any improvements to another technology or technical field, improvements to the functioning of the computer itself, use of a particular machine, effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, adding unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular useful application, and/or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular environment. See 84 Fed. Reg. 55. Viewed individually or as a whole, these additional claim element(s) do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim(s) amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
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.
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.
Claims 38-57 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uyeki (US 20120123670 A1) in view of Bouard (US 20180086221 A1), and further in view of Lee (US 20210122257 A1).
Regarding Claims 38 and 54-57: Uyeki teaches a method for checking charging stations and their functional scope comprising: defining a relevant region for checking charging stations (Uyeki, [0037–0039]), retrieving available information for charging stations in the region ([0034, 0036, 0037]), testing a charging process and detecting parameters during charging ([0040–0041]), identifying the charging station ([0036, 0040]), comparing detected data to directory data ([0040–0041]), and reporting discrepancies ([0040–0041, 0043, 0046]).
However, Uyeki does not explicitly teach determining the intention of a vehicle operator to use a charging station via a probability or driver guidance system. Bouard teaches determining the intention of a vehicle operator to use a station based on navigation/route planning and driver guidance ([0028, 0030, 0037, 0039]), and retrieving additional station attributes.
To the extent Uyeki and Bouard do not explicitly teach detection and reporting of all relevant charging parameters (e.g., dwell time, battery temperature, detailed output comparison), Lee teaches automated detection and reporting of charging station faults based on detailed parameter monitoring ([0037, 0041, 0044, 0045, Table Fig. 3]), including comparing actual vs. expected charging performance and reporting to a central server ([0041, 0042, 0046, 0047, Fig. 2]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Uyeki and Bouard to allow for more precise and relevant updating of charging station data based on driver intention and navigation, and to further incorporate Lee’s automated parameter detection and fault reporting to enhance the reliability and thoroughness of the system. The combination yields predictable results and addresses the known problem of inaccurate or outdated charging station information.
Regarding Claim 39: The method according to claim 38, wherein the relevant parameters are selected from or consist of the position data of the charging station (3), the position data of the vehicle (5), the dwell time of the vehicle (5) at the charging station (3), the position data of the vehicle operator, and vehicle-specific secondary parameters (Uyeki ([0040, 0041, 0043]), Bouard ([0038, 0041]), and Lee ([Table Fig. 3]) teach detection of position data, dwell time, and vehicle-specific parameters).
Regarding Claim 40: The method according to claim 38, wherein the detected data on the relevant parameters are transmitted to a server for comparing (S07) with the retrieved or expected data on the relevant parameters and the comparing takes place on the server (Uyeki ([0041, 0043, 0055]) and Bouard ([0041, 0042]) teach comparison/updating on a remote server or mobile device).
Regarding Claim 41: The method according to claim 38, wherein the detected data on the relevant parameters is used for comparing (S07) with the retrieved or expected data on the relevant parameters on a mobile device (Uyeki ([0041, 0043, 0055]) and Bouard ([0041, 0042]) teach comparison/updating on a remote server or mobile device).
Regarding Claim 42: The method according to claim 38, wherein the testing (S04) is already started when there is sufficient probability of the intention of the vehicle operator to use the charging station, so that the testing (S04) is already realized by approaching the notified charging station in the absence of a cable connection between the charging station and the device to be charged (Uyeki ([0038, 0039]) and Lee ([0037, 0041]) teach testing initiated when intention is established, including pre-cable connection).
Regarding Claim 43: The method according to claim 38, wherein an unchanged state of charge after a removal from the charging station following the approach of an advised charging station is detected as the deviation from the existing relevant parameters, which preferably triggers the reporting (S08) of a defect (Uyeki ([0040, 0041, Fig. 7]) and Lee ([0041, 0042]) teach detection and reporting of unsuccessful charges (unchanged SoC)).
Regarding Claim 44: The method according to claim 38, further comprising providing a driving intention message via a vehicle-to-vehicle interface to one or more further vehicles based on the intention of the vehicle operator (Lee ([0047, 0088]) and Uyeki ([0043]) teach sharing or broadcasting intention/status information to other vehicles).
Regarding Claim 45: The method according to claim 38, wherein the available information on the charging stations in the relevant region in the step of retrieving (S02) is only retrieved again if it has changed at least partially (Uyeki ([0062]) and Bouard ([0041]) teach retrieving changed station information).
Regarding Claim 46: The method according to claim 38, wherein only information about the charging stations that have changed is retrieved (Uyeki ([0062]) and Bouard ([0041]) teach retrieving changed station information).
Regarding Claim 47: The method according to claim 38, wherein the step of determining (S03) the intention of the vehicle operator to use the charging station is based on a current location and/or other data (Uyeki ([0037, 0038]) and Bouard ([0028, 0030]) teach intention based on location, vehicle characteristics, and navigation).
Regarding Claim 48: The method according to claim 38, wherein the step of determining (S03) the intention of the vehicle operator to use the charging station is based on characteristics of the vehicle (Uyeki ([0037, 0038]) and Bouard ([0028, 0030]) teach intention based on location, vehicle characteristics, and navigation).
Regarding Claim 49: The method according to claim 38, wherein the step of identifying (S05) the charging station is based on a signal between the charging station and the vehicle (Uyeki ([0041, 0044]) and Bouard ([0038, 0041]) teach station identification via signal, location, or occupancy status).
Regarding Claim 50: The method according to claim 38, wherein the step of identifying (S05) the charging station is carried out on the basis of the current location and/or a comparison with an occupancy status of the charging station used retrieved from a charging station directory (Uyeki ([0041, 0044]) and Bouard ([0038, 0041]) teach station identification via signal, location, or occupancy status).
Regarding Claim 51: The method according to any one of claims 38, wherein the step of acquiring (S06) data relating to the relevant parameters is performed via a device in the vehicle (Uyeki ([0040, 0041, 0055]) and Lee ([0041, 0042]) teach acquisition and comparison of parameters on the vehicle).
Regarding Claim 52: The method according to claim 38, wherein the step of comparing (S07) the collected data on the relevant parameters with the retrieved or expected data on the relevant parameters takes place on the device in the vehicle (Uyeki ([0040, 0041, 0055]) and Lee ([0041, 0042]) teach acquisition and comparison of parameters on the vehicle).
Regarding Claim 53: The method according claim 40, wherein the deviation found between the retrieved or expected and the collected data on the relevant parameters as well as any defects of the charging station are reported to the charging station operator and/or directories of charging stations (Uyeki ([0041, 0043, 0046]) and Bouard ([0042, 0044]) teach reporting to operators and directories).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FAHD A OBEID whose telephone number is (571)270-3324. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30am-5:00pm.
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.
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.
/FAHD A OBEID/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3627
Prosecution Insights