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 § 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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 9, 10, 15, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by FOLDESI US20180244164A1.
Regarding independent claims 1, 9 and 15, receiving, by a processor set, electric vehicle (EV) data describing at least one connected electric vehicle and at least one portable electric vehicle charging (PEVC) unit (FOLDESI discloses ¶ 24 “In at least one embodiment, controller 160 is a processor-based control system (e.g., microprocessor) and memory 175 is a flash memory, solid state disk drive, hard disk drive, or other memory type or combination of memory types.” ¶ 30 “Information about the provider vehicle 200 and the vehicle 100 requesting recharging may be communicated via a communications device 250.”);
analyzing, by the processor set, the received data to determine at least one PEVC demand requirement and at least one PEVC ride-sharing supply (FOLDESI discloses ¶ 54 “Market condition parameters may correspond to metrics that estimate or predict availability and demand for transport and charging at a particular time corresponding to when the customer requests a charger. In one implementation, the demand may be based on (i) determining the pool of candidate providers that are in service at the particular time, and (ii) determining the number of charging stations that are engaged by customers at the given time. For example, during peak hours, the number of available charging stations may be at a minimum. Rates for recharging services may be higher at peak than at low demand hours.” Examiner notes: The demand and ride-sharing supply is the number of customers and drivers engaged in delivery and receiving of the PEVC, FOLDESI takes in both customer and provider data to make a cost determination. This is read to be both the supply and demand);
assigning, by the processor set, an identified PEVC carrier to deliver a PEVC unit to a target PEVC end user (FOLDESI discloses ¶ 35 “Service 320 uses information contained in the customer request 312 to select candidate providers based on one or more criteria.”);
transmitting, by the processor set, at least one delivery instruction to the assigned PEVC carrier and the target PEVC end user (FOLDESI discloses ¶ 40 “Once the respondent 330 starts traveling to the customer's vehicle, estimated arrival information 326 is communicated to the customer 310. The estimated arrival information 326 may be generated automatically, using program instructions that cause the communication device 250 to utilize its geo-aware resources to automatically generate location information of the provider 330 as it progresses en route to the location of customer's vehicle.” ¶30 “The communication device 250 may also provide billing and navigation assistance for the provider vehicle 200.”); and
receiving, by the processor set, a confirmation message from the assigned PEVC carrier that the PEVC unit was delivered to the target PEVC end user (FOLDESI discloses ¶ 42 “Likewise, the provider (or alternatively the transport party) has an associated account for receiving funds. Once the customer's vehicle is recharged, service 320 (or the devices as configured) can trigger transfer of funds 342 out of the customer's account.”).
Regarding claim 2, the limitations of claims 1 is discussed above. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising identifying the target PEVC end user and the PEVC carrier based on the received EV data, wherein the PEVC carrier is selected from a plurality of potential PEVC carriers (FOLDESI discloses ¶ 37 “As an alternative to a single pairing process, another embodiment provides for selecting providers by contacting a set of two or more providers at once, based on criteria such as described above.”).
Regarding claim 3, the computer-implemented method of claim 2, further comprising sending at least one PEVC demand requirement and at least one PEVC ride-sharing supply to the identified target PEVC end user and the PEVC carrier (See claim 1 arguments for supply and demand limitations, FOLDESI discloses ¶ 55“Demand can be determined from real-time information maintained by the recharging service. For example, the recharging service may, at a given instance, identify the number of available charging stations and/or the number of providers that are engaged or in service.” ¶ 40 “Once the respondent 330 starts traveling to the customer's vehicle, estimated arrival information 326 is communicated to the customer 310. Examiner notes: The information is able to be sent to the customer and provider as an estimate would include the demand in the calculation).
Regarding claims 10 and 16, the limitations of claims 9 and 15 are discussed above. Identify the target PEVC end user and the PEVC carrier based on the received EV data (FOLDESI discloses ¶ 37 “As an alternative to a single pairing process, another embodiment provides for selecting providers by contacting a set of two or more providers at once, based on criteria such as described above.”);
wherein the PEVC carrier is selected from a plurality of potential PEVC carriers; and send at least one PEVC demand requirement and at least one PEVC ride-sharing supply to the identified target PEVC end user and the PEVC carrier (See claim 9 and 15 arguments for supply and demand limitations, FOLDESI discloses ¶ 55“Demand can be determined from real-time information maintained by the recharging service. For example, the recharging service may, at a given instance, identify the number of available charging stations and/or the number of providers that are engaged or in service.” ¶ 40 “Once the respondent 330 starts traveling to the customer's vehicle, estimated arrival information 326 is communicated to the customer 310. Examiner notes: The information is able to be sent to the customer and provider as an estimate would include the demand in the 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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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, 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 8, 14 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FOLDESI US20180244164A1.
Regarding claims 8, 14 and 20, the limitations of claims 1, 9 and 15 are discussed above. Further comprising normalizing the received EV data to match a predetermined data structure (One skilled in the art would realize that data would need to be formatted (normalized) to be entered into a predetermined data structure on a computer, otherwise it could cause errors or be seen by a computer as an unreadable data structure.).
Claims 4, 11 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FOLDESI US20180244164A1 in view of WILLIAMS US20240010089A1.
Regarding claims 4 , 11 and 17 the limitations of claim 1, 9 and 15 are discussed above.
FOLDESI discloses the limitations of claims 1, 9 and 15 and further comprising transmitting a signal to the PEVC unit.
FOLDESI does not disclose expressly to enable running time charging by the PEVC unit.
WILLIAMS discloses to enable running time charging by the PEVC unit (¶180 “In any event, at block 812, the remote server 150B may cause the ACV 140B to deliver electrical power to the EV 108A for a threshold charging period, where the ACV 140B and the EV 108A are each moving during at least a portion of the threshold charging period. For example, the remote server 150B may transmit an instruction to the ACV 140B to deliver electrical power to the EV 108…”).
FOLDESI and WILLIAMS are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor remote electrical vehicle charging.
At the time of the invention, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill, in the art as of the effective filing date, to modify FOLDESI with the server communication of WILLIAMS to transmit a signal to the provider to enable running time charging.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to decrease the needed time and distance between the provider and the customer to facilitate an optimized interaction (WILLIAMS discloses ¶150 “In other implementations, the remote server 150B may determine the meeting point as a location on the EV's 108A route. In yet other implementations, the remote server 150B may determine a meeting point that minimizes the total distance the EV 108A and the charging vehicle 140B have to travel to reach the meeting point.”).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill, in the art as of the effective filing date, to combine FOLDESI and WILLIAMS for the benefit of transmitting a signal to enable a running time charging to obtain the invention as specified in the claims 4, 11 and 17.
Claims 5-7, 12, 13, 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FOLDESI US20180244164A1 in view of ASSADSANGABI US20180253928.
Regarding claims 5 and 6, the limitations of claim 1 are discussed above.
FOLDESI discloses confirmation transmission and calculating transactional data for the assigned PEVC carrier and the target PEVC end user in response to receiving confirmation from the target PEVC end user provider (¶ 41 ”The cost monitoring functions enable the calculation of the fee that the customer will have to pay when the vehicle is recharged.”).
FOLDESI does not disclose expressly that the PEVC unit has been returned to a PEVC service provider
ASSADSANGABI discloses that the PEVC unit has been returned to a PEVC service provider (¶ 14 “[0014] In accordance with another aspect of the present application, there is provided a method of providing one or more items for shared distribution from a device, the method comprising the steps of: receiving a request from a user to obtain the one or more items from the device; authenticating the user by querying a database to where registered users information is stored to determine if the user is a registered user, wherein if the user is not registered, the database informs the user to register, and if the user is registered, the database sends a lock release command to the kiosk to allow the user to remove the one or more items from the device; scanning, identifying and counting the one or more items from the device to associate a user's account with the one or items, and initiating a period of time for use of the one or more items obtained from the device; sending a confirmation message to the user; wherein after the one or items is returned to the device, the item is received by the device, scanned and counted, and the user's account is disassociated from the one or more items returned to the device, thereby terminating the period of time for use of the one or more items, and wherein a further confirmation message is sent to the user. The request and confirmation messages can be received through a user information on the device or through a mobile application”).
FOLDESI and ASSADSANGABI are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor of a method for remote rentals.
At the time of the invention, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill, in the art as of the effective filing date, to modify FOLDESI with the returning capabilities of ASSADSANGABI to send a confirmation message to the provider that the charger has been returned.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to keep track of inventory and allow both parties to know when the transaction is completed.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill, in the art as of the effective filing date, to combine FOLDESI and ASSADSANGABI for the benefit of confirming the PEVC unit has been returned to a PEVC service provider to obtain the invention as specified in the claim[s].
Regarding claims 12 and 18, the limitations of claims 9 and 15 are discussed above. Receive confirmation from the target PEVC end user that the PEVC unit has been returned to a PEVC service provider (FOLDESI and ASSADSANGABI in combination teach confirming once the unit has been returned, see above arguments for claim 5.); and
calculate transactional data for the assigned PEVC carrier and the target PEVC end user in response to receiving confirmation from the target PEVC end user that the PEVC unit has been returned to a PEVC service provider (FOLDESI discloses ¶ 56 “From the payment parameters, the cost for the transport and charging is calculated and transferred from the customer account (525). In one embodiment, the cost is calculated and accessed from the customer account, in response to a determination that the recharging is complete.”).
Regarding claims 7, 13 and 19, the limitations of 6, 12 and 18 are discussed above. Further comprising processing transactional information for the assigned PEVC carrier and the target PEVC end user based on the calculated transactional data (¶56 “From the payment parameters, the cost for the transport and charging is calculated and transferred from the customer account (525). In one embodiment, the cost is calculated and accessed from the customer account, in response to a determination that the recharging is complete.”).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CONNOR D COUSINEAU whose telephone number is (571)447-9620. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pm.
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, Kamini Shah can be reached at (571) 272-2279. 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.
/C.D.C./Examiner, Art Unit 2115
/KAMINI S SHAH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2115
Prosecution Insights