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 .
DETAILED ACTION
2. The action is responsive to the communications filed on 8/26/2026. Claims 1-2, 6, 10-11 are pending in the case. Claims 1-2, 6, 10-11 are amended. Claims 3-5, 7-9 are cancelled. Claim 1, 11 are independent claims. Claims 1-2, 6, 10-11 are rejected.
Summary of claims
3. Claims 1-2, 6, 10-11 are pending,
Claims 1-2, 6, 10-11 are amended,
Claims 3-5, 7-9 are cancelled,
Claims 1, 11 are independent claims,
Claims 1-2, 6, 10-11 are rejected.
Remarks
4. Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed on 8/26/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-2, 6, 10-11 under 103 have been fully considered and are not persuasive in view of new rejection ground(s).
Applicant argued in pages 8-10 that the cited references including Calabro and Weld did not teach the amended claimed route-specific variance-based allocation of usable charging time. Examiner respectfully submits that Calabro discloses route estimate, and charging schedule and planning for electric vehicles (Abstract), specifically, Calabro discloses determining the EV’s history on a specific route (Calabro: [0017], [0089]), such as the EV’s historical data from the last run on the same route (Calabro: [0326]), further, Calabro discloses calculating an updated estimate for the next route segment based on variations in the environment, EV, power usage, cost of power, time of travel, traffic, etc. (Calabro: [0194]), please note in Calabro, the EV’s history data is for a specific route, and the estimating and scheduling is calculated based on variations in the charging information. In addition, Weld discloses analyzing current and/or historical data at a particular location along the route (Weld: [0050]), and Weld also analyzing real time variations in traffic conditions, weather conditions (Weld: [0024], [0025], [0043], [0045], [0046]), specifically, Weld teaches analyzing and comparing battery charge levels, weather data, traffic data and so forth, including data representative of historical and current battery charge levels, historical records and variations in weather and temperature data, historical records and variations in traffic patterns, and so forth (Weld: [0043]). With respect to “route-specific” data, in an analogous art of scheduling/planning EV charging, Hancock discloses analyzing and calculating route-specific changes (Hancock: [0139]), and Hancock also teaches variation associated with historical usage (Hancock: [0092]). Accordingly, Calabro, Weld and Hancock disclose the amended claimed route-specific variance-based calculation.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
4. Claims 1-2, 6, 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anthony Calabro et al (US Publication 20250128632 A1, hereinafter Calabro), and in view David Low Weld et al (US Publication 20240118099 A1, hereinafter Weld), and Jordan Frances Hancock et al (US Publication 20250033517 A1, hereinafter Hancock).
As for independent claim 1, Calabro discloses: A charging plan creating apparatus ([0101], The at least one processor of the CaaS also may execute instructions to calculate the charging plan based on based on a total cost per distance (TCD) of travel over each of a plurality of route segments) comprising: a traveling information storage configured to store, for each of a plurality of travel routes,
traveling energy information on at least one electric vehicle, the plurality of travel routes including a first travel route and a second travel route, the traveling energy information on the at least one electric vehicle for each of the travel routes including measured values of consumed energy that were actually used in plural past traveling actions of the at least one electric vehicle along a corresponding one of the plurality of travel routes (Calabro: [0017], [0089], determining the EV’s history on a specific route; [0326], the EV’s historical data from the last run on the same route); a variance calculator configured to calculate, based on the traveling energy information for each of the plurality of travel routes, (i) a first variance of the measured values of the consumed energy that were actually used in the plural past traveling actions of the first travel route and (ii) a second variance of the measured values of the consumed energy that were actually used in the plural past traveling actions of the second travel route (Calabro: [0194], calculating an updated estimate for the next route segment based on variations in the environment, EV, power usage, cost of power, time of travel, traffic, etc.; please note in Calabro, the EV’s history data is for a specific route, and the estimating and scheduling is calculated based on variations in the charging information); and a charging plan creator configured to, obtain a first traveling plan for causing a first electric vehicle to travel along the first travel route and a second traveling plan for causing a second electric vehicle to travel along the second travel route (Calabro: [0101], The at least one processor of the CaaS also may execute instructions to calculate the charging plan based on based on a total cost per distance (TCD) of travel over each of a plurality of route segments; [0194], An updated estimate for the next route segment is calculated at 1260 based on variations in the environment, EV, power usage, cost of power, time of travel, traffic, etc.), a common stop time of both the first and second electric vehicles being included in the first and second traveling plans for the respective first and second electric vehicles (Calabro: [0155], the start time and end time of the stop);
Calabro discloses scheduling/planning EV charging based on analyzing variation data but does not clearly disclose performing a comparison, in an analogous art of managing EV charging plan, Weld disclose: perform a comparison between the first variance and the second variance; and allocate, during the common stop time a usable charging time to the first and second electric vehicles in accordance with a result of the comparison between the first variance and the second variance to accordingly create first and second charging plans for the respective first and second electric vehicles (Weld: [0043], the prediction of the travel range may also involve analyzing and comparing battery charge levels, weather data, traffic data, and so forth, including data representative of historical and current battery charge levels and discharge rates, historical records and variations in weather and temperature data, historical records and variations in traffic patterns, and so forth).
Calabro and Weld are analogous arts because they are in the same field of endeavor, monitoring, managing EV charging plan based on the collected data. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill, in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the invention of Calabro using the teachings of Weld to include analyzing and comparing variations charging information to determine charging plan. It would provide Calabro’s apparatus with enhanced capabilities of optimize the charging plan by taking in account more variations data in the specific route.
Further, Calabro discloses analyzing and calculating the EV’s historical data from the last run on the same route (Calabro: [0326]), but does not clearly disclose calculating the traveling energy information of the first route and the second route, in an analogous art of managing EV energy charging, Hancock discloses: the plurality of travel routes including a first travel route and a second travel route, the traveling energy information on the at least one electric vehicle for each of the travel routes including measured values of consumed energy that were actually used in plural past traveling actions of the at least one electric vehicle along a corresponding one of the plurality of travel routes (Hancock: [0139], calculating route-specific changes); a variance calculator configured to calculate, based on the traveling energy information for each of the plurality of travel routes, (i) a first variance of the measured values of the consumed energy that were actually used in the plural past traveling actions of the first travel route and (ii) a second variance of the measured values of the consumed energy that were actually used in the plural past traveling actions of the second travel route (Hancock: [0092], variation associated with historical usage); perform a comparison between the first variance and the second variance; and allocate, during the common stop time a usable charging time to the first and second electric vehicles in accordance with a result of the comparison between the first variance and the second variance to accordingly create first and second charging plans for the respective first and second electric vehicles (Hancock: [0163], The Engine 020 uses this process structure to conduct a comparison (e.g. comparing a set of possible outputs for the given use case, generally related to cost, scheduling, or energy allocation));
Calabro and Hancock are analogous arts because they are in the same field of endeavor, monitoring, managing EV charging plan based on the collected data. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill, in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the invention of Calabro using the teachings of Hancock to include analyzing and comparing route-specific data and variation data. It would provide Calabro’s apparatus with enhanced capabilities of optimize the charging plan with more accuracy.
As for claim 2, Calabro-Weld-Hancock discloses: wherein: the charging plan creator is configured to allocate the usable charging time to the first and second electric vehicles such that: a first charging time included in the usable charging time and allocated to the first electric vehicle is greater than a second charging time included in the usable charging time and allocated to the second electric vehicle upon when the result of the comparison indicates that the first variance is greater than the second variance for the second travel route; and the second charging time included in the usable charging time and allocated to the second electric vehicle is greater than the first charging time included in the usable charging time and allocated to the first electric vehicle when the result of the comparison indicates that the second variance is greater than the first variance (Calabro: Abstract, determines from the collected data a charging priority for the EV relative to other EVs at the depot. When charging is required to meet the SoC goal of the EV, a charger is selected for charging the EV and a charging start time and charging duration is determined by an optimization algorithm that concurrently optimizes a minimal total cost of electricity for total power transferred to the EV during charging while maximizing a probability of the EV leaving the depot with its SoC goal satisfied; [0035], determine the charging priority for the EV by determining a hysteresis value for availability of a charger of the at least one charger and a charging power allocation to increase efficiency of charging over time by preventing delays when a higher priority EV displaces an EV currently being charged; Weld: [0043], the prediction of the travel range may also involve analyzing and comparing battery charge levels, weather data, traffic data, and so forth, including data representative of historical and current battery charge levels and discharge rates, historical records and variations in weather and temperature data, historical records and variations in traffic patterns, and so forth; Hancock: [0163], The Engine 020 uses this process structure to conduct a comparison (e.g. comparing a set of possible outputs for the given use case, generally related to cost, scheduling, or energy allocation)).
claims 3-5, 7-9 cancelled
As for claim 6, Calabro-Weld-Hancock discloses: the at least one electric vehicle comprises a plurality of electric vehicles (Calabro: [0002], individual electric vehicles and fleets of electric vehicles); and the variance calculator is configured to calculate the first and second variances of the measured values of the consumed energy that were actually used by the plurality of electric vehicles in the plural past travel actions of the first and second travel routes (Calabro: [0156], Route related information includes distance to next stop, type of stop, SoC thresholds and limits, charger status and availability at next stop with a charger, and charger status for at least all chargers along the route; [0173], Telemetry includes the automatic measurement and wireless transmission of data from remote sources with the data collected routed to receiving equipment at a destination site; [0301], significant deviations from the power consumption of estimates, a change in route; [0326], the EV’s historical data from the last run on the same route; [0353], Considered in the depot charging algorithm are parameters including: the EV charging duration (from schedule), power needed, first EV out (from schedule), and external (non-schedule) factors which include the cost of power, availability of power (under threshold(s), predictive factors to the EV schedule (e.g., weather), predictive factors to charging (ambient temperature), EV SoC (at any time after arrival), and the like).
As for claim 10, Calabro-Weld-Hancock discloses: the charging plan creating apparatus according to claim 1 (see analysis in claim 1); and a charging executing unit configured to: execute charging of a battery of the first electric vehicle in accordance with the first charging plan for the first electric vehicle; and execute charging of a battery of the second electric vehicle in accordance with the second charging plan for the second electric vehicle (Calabro: [0187], a mechanical actuator system for connecting a physical wire can be used for opportunity charging).
As per independent claim 11, it recites features that are substantially same as those features claimed by claim 1, thus the rationales for rejecting claim 1 are incorporated herein.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Hua Lu whose telephone number is 571-270-1410 and fax number is 571-270-2410. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 9:00 am to 6:00 pm EST. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Scott Baderman can be reached on 571-272-3644. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 703-273-8300.
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.
/Hua Lu/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2118
