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 .
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.
FINAL ACTION
This action is in response to applicant’s claim amendment(s) submittal 04/06/2026. Claims 1, 3, 5, 6, 8, 11, 13-17 are amended. Claims 19-22 are new. Claims 1-6, 8-17 and 19-22 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Examiner’s Remarks - Specification (Title)
The examiner withdraws the objection in view of applicant’s title amendment.
Examiner’s Remarks - Claim Objections
The examiner withdraws the objection in view of applicant’s claim amendment(s).
Examiner’s Remarks - Double Patenting
The examiner withdraws the rejection in view of applicant’s approved Terminal Disclaimer.
Examiner’s Remarks - 35 USC § 112
The examiner withdraws the rejection in view of applicant’s claim amendment(s) and claim cancellations.
Examiner’s Remarks - 35 USC § 103
Applicant argues:
“Claim 15 has been similarly amended. The claim amendments are fully supported by the Application as filed, including at, for example, FIG. 2. As illustrated in FIG. 2, electric vehicle 216, similar to mobile device 204, is configured to communicate with EV charger 202 and server 208 via a near field communication (NFC) access management 206. The corresponding description at paragraph [0063] also indicates that "BV charger 202 can communicate with an electric vehicle 216 instead of mobile device."
The examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner respectfully notes that applicant’s original disclosure is silent with regards to the EV vehicle (figure element 216) possessing the capability to communicate with server (figure element 208). (EMPHASIS)
The examiner notes that applicant’s specification is explicit and intentional as it describes the communication between the user device (figure element 204) and server (figure element 208). The examiner notes that the applicant is attempting to argue/assert that the EV vehicle (figure element 216) is functionality equivalent to applicant’s user’s device (figure element 204) as it pertains to communication with the server (figure element 208) while applicant’s original disclosure does not explicitly support such an argument/assertion.
The examiner notes that the applicant relies on the illustrations of figure 2 for support in this instance.
Applicant’s figure 2 reproduced.
PNG
media_image1.png
657
775
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The examiner contends that applicant’s figure 2 does not illustrate explicit communication between the EV vehicle (figure element 216) and server (figure element 208) as argued/asserted. Factually, the examiner contends that the illustrations of applicant’s figure 2 simply illustrates a block diagram directional arrow from the EV vehicle (figure element 216) to a NFC Access and Device Management(node.js) (figure element 206). The examiner notes that NFC Access and Device Management(node.js) (figure element 206) is not the server (figure element 208).
The applicant further relies on paragraph 0063 as additional support for the above arguments/assertions. However, the examiner notes that paragraph 0063 simply states the following:
[0063] A system diagram 200 in accordance with an embodiment of the invention is shown in Fig. 2. EV charger 202 can communicate with a user mobile device 204 via NFC. It will be understood by those skilled in the art that user mobile devices can include (but are not limited to) wearable mobile devices such as wearable smart watches. In some embodiments, EV charger 202 can communicate with an electric vehicle 216 instead of mobile device. EV 202 can come with pre-installed NFC or may be retrofitted in the field with the NFC. Mobile device 204 can communicate with an NFC access management 206. Server 208 can include a charging protocol, for example open charge point protocol (OCPP). This protocol enables communication between the server and the users’ mobile devices. The access management 206 can communicate to a data base (DB) 212. A central management system (CMS) 210 can communicated with the server 208, the access management 206 and the data base 212. The CMS 210 can also communicate with other mobile devices 214. ”.
The examiner respectfully notes that the above statement of, “EV charger 202 can communicate with an electric vehicle 216 instead of mobile device”, does not render support for the applicant’s argued assertion that the EV vehicle (figure element 216) can communicate with server (figure element 208).
As such, with regards to applicant’s argued assertion of, “As illustrated in FIG. 2, electric vehicle 216, similar to mobile device 204 …”, the examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner notes that EV vehicle (figure element 216) is not similar to mobile device 204 as argued/asserted. The examiner notes that applicant’s original specification disclosure does not provide no explicit stated capability that the electric vehicle 216 possess similar mobile device 204 functionality as it pertains to the communication with the server 208.
With regards to applicant’s argued assertion of, “As illustrated in FIG. 2, electric vehicle 216, similar to mobile device 204, is configured to communicate server 208 via a near field communication (NFC) access management 206”, the examiner respectfully disagrees. First, the examiner notes that per figure 2, applicant’s figure element 206 is identified as NFC access and device management (node.js). The examiner contends that factually speaking, applicant’s original disclosure is silent to explicit communication between the EV vehicle 216 and server 208 via near field communication (NFC) access management 206. The examiner notes that applicant’s argument(s) in this instance appears to fabricate, for the purpose of identifying/providing support for their claim amendment(s) submitted on 04/06/2026, a communication capability between the EV vehicle 216, server 208 that is simply not disclosed in applicant’s original specification disclosure.
Applicant argues:
“Additionally, Applicant submits that prior to the filing date of the instant Application, one of skill in the art would understand that electric vehicles can have similar functionalities with mobile devices, such as smart phones, which is further displayed in FIG. 2 and described throughout the application”.
Applicant’s figure 2 reproduced.
PNG
media_image1.png
657
775
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With regards to applicant’s statement of, “Applicant submits that prior to the filing date of the instant Application, one of skill in the art would understand that electric vehicles can have similar functionalities with mobile devices, such as smart phones”, the examiner respectfully contends the applicant appears to assert that the understanding of one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of applicant’s filing date would conveniently arrive at the specifics details of applicant’s claimed invention thereby foregoing the requirement(s) of the applicant to disclose such specific details in their patent application. Interestingly enough, the examiner contends that the applicant is further arguing novelty over the prior art in this instance. The examiner additionally notes that the understanding of the state of the art at the time of applicant’s filing date by one of ordinary skill in the art cannot be a substitution for distinct feature(s) that are obviously absent from applicant’s original specification disclosure of applicant’s claim invention but subsequently argued by the applicant to be present in this instance.
Applicant argues:
“For example, when it comes to having similar functionalities to mobile devices, one of skill in the art would understand that an "electric car is like a smartphone with four wheels." See Coron, VIA Empresa, 2016("the brain of an electric car, the heart, veins, arteries and everything is like a smartphone").”.
The examiner respectfully does not understand the attempt, by the applicant in this instance, to correlate a common smart phone’s functionality/capability with that of an Electric Vehicle. Again, the examiner respectfully notes that the understanding of the state of the art at the time of applicant’s filing date by one of ordinary skill in the art cannot be a substitution for distinct feature(s) that are obviously absent from applicant’s original specification disclosure of applicant’s claim invention but subsequently argued by the applicant to be present in this instance.
Applicant argues:
“Further, one of skill in the art would understand that electric vehicles can communicate with EV chargers via a charging cable for authentication. See Vogel, Semiconductor Engineering, 2018 ("TIC utilizes Power Line Communication (PLC), which acts as a type of "transceiver" linking to Internet-based services that allow authentication, payments, and other convenient services ... the charging cable itself transmits data. And so now we have real-time communication between the vehicle and charging station").”.
The examiner respectfully submits that the EV charger (figure element 202) is not the server (figure element 208) for which the applicant appears to be asserting.
PNG
media_image1.png
657
775
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Again, the examiner notes that applicant’s specification does not explicitly recite that the EV vehicle (figure element 216) can perform the explicit functionalities of applicant’s user device (figure element 204) as it pertains to communication between user device (figure element 204) and the server (figure element 208). Also, the examiner contends that the steady reliance on non-original disclosure material by the applicant further indicates/exemplifies that applicant’s specification, as originally presented, does not support applicant’s argued assertions/remark that the EV vehicle (figure element 216) can communicate with the server (figure element 208) and carry out similar feature(s) that applicant’s user device can handle with the server as argued. The examiner submits that the explicit functionalities of the user device (figure element 204) pertaining to communication with the server (figure element 208) are explicitly disclosed in applicant’s original specification disclosure.
Applicant argues:
“Additionally, Applicant submits that claim 1, as amended, is novel and nonobvious over the cited references for at least the reason that the cited references, alone or in combination, do not teach each and every element of amended claim 1.”.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner contends that applicant’s newly amended feature(s) for independent claims 1 and 15, of the EV is configured to forward the charging session data to a server when an internet connection is available to the EV, is not supported by applicant’s original disclosure. The examiner notes that in view of applicant’s claim amendment(s) the examiner introduces the teachings of prior art reference Levy (WO 2011/044543) to the record.
Applicant argues:
“For example, Ishibashi and Solomon do not teach, suggest, or otherwise render obvious at least "wherein the EV is configured to forward the charging session data to a server when an internet connection is available to the EV," as recited in amended claim 1 and similarly recited in claim 15. The Office Action acknowledges that Ishibashi does not teach, suggest, or otherwise render obvious "wherein the charging session data is forwarded to a server when an Internet connection is available on the EV." See Office Action at p. 10. However, the Office Action alleges that this element is taught by paragraph [0086] of Solomon.
Applicant respectfully disagrees and submits that paragraph [0086] of Solomon describes that "the charging station or DCU stores state data related to each charging session. When network connectivity is restored, the state data is transmitted to the server" (emphasis added). Paragraph [0030] further specifies that the DCU is a data control unit, which is coupled to the charging station over a Wireless Personal Area Network (WPAN) or a Local Area Network (LAN). Therefore, the DCU is not an EV. Accordingly, Solomon does not teach, suggest, or otherwise render obvious transferring the charging session data to the EV and forwarding the charging session data to the server by the EV, as recited in claims 1 and similarly recited in claim 15.”.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner contends that applicant’s newly amended claim feature(s) for independent claims 1 and 15, of “wherein the EV is configured to forward the charging session data to a server when an internet connection is available to the EV”, is not supported by applicant’s original disclosure.
Moreover, the examiner notes that in view of applicant’s claim amendment(s) the examiner introduces the teachings of prior art reference Levy (WO 2011/044543) to the record. The examiner contends that Levy details a process of forwarding charging session related data to a server from a EV. See rejection below.
Applicant argues:
“Turner does not cure the deficiencies of Ishibashi and Solomon. Turner discloses
"sending user data associated with a user at an EVCS or EVSE and charging session data to a back office computer; and using the computing hardware, receiving authorization data from the back office computer, the authorization data indicating that the user is authorized to use the EVCS or EVSE," but does not teach, suggest, or otherwise render obvious "wherein the EV is configured to forward the charging session data to a server when an internet connection is available to the EV," as recited in amended claim 1. See Turner at paragraph [0015].”.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner contends that applicant’s newly amended claim feature(s) for independent claims 1 and 15, of “wherein the EV is configured to forward the charging session data to a server when an internet connection is available to the EV”, is not supported by applicant’s original disclosure.
Moreover, the examiner notes that in view of applicant’s claim amendment(s) the examiner introduces the teachings of prior art reference Levy (WO 2011/044543) to the record. The examiner contends that Levy details a process of forwarding charging session related data to a server from a EV. See rejection below.
Applicant argues:
“Partovi also does not cure the deficiencies of Ishibashi and Solomon. Partovi discloses "the vehicle and/or the charger or the receiver can provide remote information on progress of charging or any faults or errors to a driver or designated person who may be outside the vehicle-12-
at home, office, restaurant, etc. through a WiFi, GSM, 3G, 4G, Bluetooth, etc. network by sending real time information to a handheld or portable device or computer such as a phone, laptop, tablet, desktop computer, TV, etc," but does not teach, suggest, or otherwise render obvious "wherein the EV is configured to forward the charging session data to a server when an internet connection is available to the EV," as recited in amended claim 1. See Partovi at paragraph [0088].”.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner contends that applicant’s newly amended claim feature(s) for independent claims 1 and 15, of “wherein the EV is configured to forward the charging session data to a server when an internet connection is available to the EV”, is not supported by applicant’s original disclosure.
Moreover, the examiner notes that in view of applicant’s claim amendment(s) the examiner introduces the teachings of prior art reference Levy (WO 2011/044543) to the record. The examiner contends that Levy details a process of forwarding charging session related data to a server from a EV. See rejection below.
Applicant argues:
“Sakakibara also does not cure the deficiencies of Ishibashi and Solomon. Sakakibara
discloses "charging facility 300 is configured to transmit and receive information bi-directionally with respect to management server 410 through communication network 400," but does not teach, suggest, or otherwise render obvious "wherein the EV is configured to forward the charging session data to a server when an internet connection is available to the EV," as recited in amended claim 1. See Sakakibara at paragraph [0035].”.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner contends that applicant’s newly amended claim feature(s) for independent claims 1 and 15, of “wherein the EV is configured to forward the charging session data to a server when an internet connection is available to the EV”, is not supported by applicant’s original disclosure.
Moreover, the examiner notes that in view of applicant’s claim amendment(s) the examiner introduces the teachings of prior art reference Levy (WO 2011/044543) to the record. The examiner contends that Levy details a process of forwarding charging session related data to a server from a EV. See rejection below.
Applicant argues:
“As such, Applicant submits that claims 1 and 15 are non-obvious in view of the cited references, and requests the rejection be withdrawn. Claims 2-6, 8-14, and 16-17 depend from and include all of the elements of claim 1 or claim 15, and recite additional elements of particular advantage and utility. The asserted combination of Ishibashi, Solomon, Turner, Partovi, and Sakakibara does not meet all of the elements of claims 1 and 15, much less the combination of elements of claims 2-6, 8-14, and 16-17. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully requests that the 103 rejections of claims 2-6, 8-14, and 16-17 also be withdrawn”.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner contends that applicant’s newly amended claim feature(s) for independent claims 1 and 15, of “wherein the EV is configured to forward the charging session data to a server when an internet connection is available to the EV”, is not supported by applicant’s original disclosure.
Moreover, the examiner notes that in view of applicant’s claim amendment(s) the examiner introduces the teachings of prior art reference Levy (WO 2011/044543) to the record. The examiner contends that Levy details a process of forwarding charging session related data to a server from a EV. See rejection below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 1 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. "transfer the charging session data to the EV, wherein the EV is configured to forward the charging session data to a server when an internet connection is available to the EV”, lacks support from applicant’s original disclosure.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. "wherein the EV processor is further configured by the mobile device EV authentication software application to cause the EV to communicate with the server when the internet a network connection with the server is present available to the EV.”, lacks support from applicant’s original disclosure.
Claims 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. “wherein the processor is further configured by the authentication software application to cause the EV charger to: receive one or more pieces of firmware from the EV; and perform a firmware update using the one or more pieces of firmware” lacks support from applicant’s original disclosure.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention. “wherein the processor is configured by the authentication software application to cause the EV charger to: authenticate a first communication session with an EV through via the charger cable; send, via the first communication session, encrypted EV charger access credentials to the EV; receive, via the first communication session, a digital token from the EV; verify the digital token; end the first communication session with the EV; after ending the first communication session with the EV”.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention. “send, via the first communication session, encrypted EV charger access credentials to the EV; receive, via the first communication session, a digital token from the EV; verify the digital token; end the first communication session with the EV; after ending the first communication session with the EV, initiate a charging session based upon a command contained within the digital token; end the charging session; authenticate a second communication session with the EV via the charger cable, wherein the second communication session is separate from the first communication session; and through the second communication session with the EV, transfer the charging session data to the EV, wherein the charging session data to a server when an internet connection is available on the EV, wherein the EV comprises an EV processor and an EV memory containing an EV authentication software application; wherein the EV processor is configured by the EV authentication software application to cause the EV to: send the authentication request to the EV charger via the charger cable; receive the encrypted EV charger access credentials from the EV charger; [[and]] send the digital token to the EV charger; and forward the charging session data to a server when an internet connection is available to the EV.”.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention. “wherein the EV processor is further configured by the mobile device EV authentication software application to cause the EV to communicate with the server when the internet a network connection with the server is present available to the EV.”.
Claims 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention. “wherein the processor is further configured by the authentication software application to cause the EV charger to: receive one or more pieces of firmware from the EV”.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 6, 8, 10-13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ISHIBASHI (US Patent Publication No. 2011/0144844) in view of Levy (WO 2011/044543).
As to claim 1, ISHIBASHI teaches a electric vehicle (EV) charger, comprising:
a power management unit (see figure 1 of ISHIBASHI);
a processor (see figure 1 of ISHIBASHI);
a charger cable (i.e., …teaches in par. 0074 the following: “The charging apparatus 40 is means for supplying power to the electric vehicle 50 connected to a plug.”);
and a memory containing an authentication software application to cause the EV charger to: (i.e., …teaches in par. 0022 the following: “an authentication processing unit”);
wherein the processor is configured by the authentication software application to (i.e., …teaches in par. 0022 the following: “an authentication processing unit that performs, after authentication information for performing authentication processing with the electric vehicle”):
authenticate a first communication session with an EV via the charger cable (i.e., …teaches in par. 0074 the following: “the charging apparatus 40 can transmit information to the electric vehicle 50 connected to the plug or receive information from the electric vehicle 50 connected to the plug”);
send, via the first communication session, encrypted EV charger access credentials to the EV (i.e., …teaches in par. 0122 the following: “when a random number, a ciphertext, and identification information are input from the management apparatus 60 via the communication unit 402, the control unit 404 performs mutual authentication with the electric vehicle 50 by using the random number, the ciphertext, and the identification information”);
receive, via the first communication session, a digital token from the EV (i.e. …teaches in par. 0123 the following: “When the communication path to the electric vehicle 50 is established, the input/output unit 406 receives a public key certificate (hereinafter, a vehicle certificate) transmitted by the electric vehicle 50 and used for authentication processing.”);
verify the digital token (i.e. …teaches in par. 0124 the following: “If verification of the vehicle certificate by the taxing server 20 is successful and verification of the server certificate by the electric vehicle 50 is successful”);
end the first communication session with the EV (i.e., …teaches in par. 0084 the following: “When the electric vehicle 50 and the charging apparatus 40 are connected by a plug (Step 1), the charging apparatus 40 detects the electric vehicle 50 by using the identification information input from the management apparatus 60. When detection of the electric vehicle 50 succeeds, the charging apparatus 40 performs authentication processing as appropriate. The charging apparatus 40 that succeeded in the detection and the authentication processing establishes a communication path between the charging apparatus 40 and the electric vehicle 50 and a communication path between the charging apparatus 40 and the taxing server 20 via the management apparatus 60 (Step 2).”);
after ending the first communication session with the EV (i.e., …teaches in par. 0084 the following: “When the electric vehicle 50 and the charging apparatus 40 are connected by a plug (Step 1), the charging apparatus 40 detects the electric vehicle 50 by using the identification information input from the management apparatus 60. When detection of the electric vehicle 50 succeeds, the charging apparatus 40 performs authentication processing as appropriate. The charging apparatus 40 that succeeded in the detection and the authentication processing establishes a communication path between the charging apparatus 40 and the electric vehicle 50 and a communication path between the charging apparatus 40 and the taxing server 20 via the management apparatus 60 (Step 2).”),
initiate a charging session based upon a command contained within the digital token , wherein the EV charger is configured to provide power to the EV via the charger cable during the charging session (i.e., …teaches in par. 0124 the following: “If verification of the vehicle certificate by the taxing server 20 is successful and verification of the server certificate by the electric vehicle 50 is successful, the control unit 404 supplies power input from the power supply unit 408 to the electric vehicle 50 via the input/output unit 406.”);
end the charging session (i.e., …teaches in par. 0125 the following: “When charging of the electric vehicle 50 is completed, the control unit 404 causes the power supply to the electric vehicle 50 to stop”);
store, in the memory, charging session data of the charging session (i.e., …teaches in par. 0125 the following: “the input/output unit 406 receives information about charged watt-hours transmitted by the electric vehicle 50. Then, the input/output unit 406 inputs the information about charged watt-hours received from the electric vehicle 50 to the control unit 404. The control unit 404 transmits the information about charged watt-hours input by the input/output unit 406 to the taxing server 20 via the communication unit 402.”);
authenticate a second communication session with the EV via the charger cable (i.e., …teaches in par. 0098 the following: “When charging of the batteries is completed, the electric vehicle 50 and the taxing server 20 start taxation processing (Step 5). Since authentication is successfully completed in Step 3, the taxing server 20 already correctly recognizes the owner (ID information (the above identification ID.sub.EV) of the electric vehicle 50 contained in the public key certificate C.sub.1) of the electric vehicle 50, and performs taxation processing with this owner as the taxable person.”),
wherein the second communication session is separate from the first communication session (i.e., …teaches in par. 0098 the following: “When charging of the batteries is completed, the electric vehicle 50 and the taxing server 20 start taxation processing (Step 5). The taxation process is a different session that occurs after the first session of charging the vehicle is complete”);
and through the second communication session with the EV, transfer the charging session data to the EV (i.e., …teaches in par. 0098 the following: “the electric vehicle 50 first transmits information about charged watt-hours to the taxing server 20 (notification of charged watt-hours). After receiving information about charged watt-hours from the electric vehicle 50, the taxing server 20 performs taxation processing based on the charged watt-hours. For example, the taxing server 20 calculates a tax amount in accordance with the charged watt-hours and records the calculated tax amount in association with the owner of the electric vehicle 50. When such taxation processing is completed, the taxing server 20 transmits information indicating completion of taxation processing to the electric vehicle 50 (notification of taxing completion). The electric vehicle 50 receives information indicating completion of taxation processing from the taxing server 20, and maintains a state where the taxation processing is complete (hereinafter, taxing complete state).” The examiner notes that the taxation information transmitted back to the vehicle including the charging session data in the calculations.).
The system of ISHIBAHSI:
wherein the EV is configured to forward the charging session data is forwarded to a server when an internet connection is available to the EV.
In this instance the examiner notes the teachings of prior art reference Levy.
Levy illustrates in figure 5, figure element 155 the forwarding of charge station (i.e., charge session) data to a server.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the of the claimed invention was made to implement the teachings of ISHIBASHI with the teachings of Levy by having their system comprises an enhanced EV communication process. One would have been motivated to do so to provide a simple and effective means to provide a secure data to end users, wherein the enhanced EV communication process helps facilitate better communication security and will make it easier to manage charging session data.
As to claim 2, the system of ISHIBASHI and Levy as applied to claim 1 above teaches EV charging, specifically ISHIBASHI teaches the EV charger of claim 1, wherein the memory further contains a digital certificate comprising cryptographic information (i.e. …teaches in par. 0139 the following: “The storage unit 508 is means for holding information such as secret keys, public keys, and public key certificates.”).
As to claim 3, the system of ISHIBASHI and Levy as applied to claim 2 above teaches EV charging, specifically ISHIBASHI teaches the EV charger of claim 2, wherein authenticating the first communication session comprises receiving an authentication request comprising an encrypted challenge (i.e., …teaches in par. 0085 the following: “in a case of performing mutual authentication between the charging apparatus 40 and the electric vehicle 50, the management apparatus 60 acquires the identification information of the electric vehicle 50, the random number and the ciphertext from the security token 80 by using the management terminal 62 and the reader/writer 70 and inputs the same to the charging apparatus 40. This random number is generated by the random number generator of the security token 80. Also, this ciphertext is the random number which has been encrypted by using the cipher generator based on the key information held by the security token 80. In this case, the charging apparatus 40 performs mutual authentication with the electric vehicle 50 by using the identification information, the random number and the ciphertext input from the management apparatus 60, and after succeeding in this mutual authentication”).
As to claim 5, the system of ISHIBASHI and Levy as applied to claim 2 above teaches EV charging, specifically ISHIBASHI teaches the EV charger of claim 2, wherein the EV charger being configured to verify the digital token comprises the EV charger being configure to decrypt the digital token using the cryptographic information contained within the digital certificate (i.e. …teaches in par. 0175 the following: “charging apparatus 40 decrypts the ciphertext E.sub.EV received from the electric vehicle 50 (S162).”).
As to claim 6, the system of ISHIBASHI and Levy as applied to claim 1 above teaches EV charging, specifically ISHIBASHI teaches the EV charger of claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured by the authentication software application cause the EV charger to collect charging session data (i.e., …teaches in par. 0125 the following: “the input/output unit 406 receives information about charged watt-hours transmitted by the electric vehicle 50. Then, the input/output unit 406 inputs the information about charged watt-hours received from the electric vehicle 50 to the control unit 404. The control unit 404 transmits the information about charged watt-hours input by the input/output unit 406 to the taxing server 20 via the communication unit 402.”).
As to claim 7, (canceled).
As to claim 8, the system of ISHIBASHI and Levy as applied to claim 6 above teaches EV charging, specifically ISHIBASHI teaches the EV charger of claim 6, wherein the charging session data comprises duration of the charging session, energy used during the charging session, and a plug-in status (i.e., …teaches in par. 0125 the following: “the input/output unit 406 receives information about charged watt-hours transmitted by the electric vehicle 50. Then, the input/output unit 406 inputs the information about charged watt-hours received from the electric vehicle 50 to the control unit 404. The control unit 404 transmits the information about charged watt-hours input by the input/output unit 406 to the taxing server 20 via the communication unit 402.”).
As to claim 10, the system of ISHIBASHI and Levy as applied to claim 1 above teaches EV charging, ISHIBASHI teaches the EV charger of claim 1, wherein the digital token is bound to a specific time period (i.e., …teaches in par. 0201 the following: “the expiration date of a public key certificate used for the above authentication processing is preferably set for a legal maintenance date of the electric vehicle 50.”).
As to claim 11, the system of ISHIBASHI and Levy as applied to claim 1 above teaches EV charging, specifically ISHIBASHI teaches the EV charger of claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured by the authentication software application to cause the EV charger to receive a communication from the EV via the charger cable (i.e. …illustrates in figure 3A, figure element 406 and 50 communication via the plug).
As to claim 12, the system of ISHIBASHI and Levy as applied to claim 11 above teaches EV charging, specifically ISHIBASHI teaches the EV charger of claim 11, wherein the communication comprises an encrypted message to end the charging session (i.e. …teaches in par. 0117 the following: “a secure communication path based on the session key K is established between the electric vehicle 50 and the charging apparatus 40.”).
As to claim 13, the system of ISHIBASHI and Levy as applied to claim 12 above teaches EV charging, specifically ISHIBASHI teaches the EV charger of claim 12, wherein the processor is further configured by the authentication software application to decrypt the encrypted message and to end the charging session (i.e. …teaches in par. 0117 the following: “a secure communication path based on the session key K is established between the electric vehicle 50 and the charging apparatus 40.”).
As to claim 15, ISHIBASHI teaches a system for electric vehicle (EV) charging, the system comprising: an EV charger, wherein the EV charger comprises:
a power management unit (see figure 1 of ISHIBASHI);
a processor (see figure 1 of ISHIBASHI);
a charger cable (i.e., …teaches in par. 0074 the following: “The charging apparatus 40 is means for supplying power to the electric vehicle 50 connected to a plug.”);
and a memory containing an authentication software application (i.e., …teaches in par. 0022 the following: “an authentication processing unit that performs, after authentication information for performing authentication processing with the electric vehicle”);
and EV (i.e., …teaches in par. 0074 the following: “The charging apparatus 40 is means for supplying power to the electric vehicle 50 connected to a plug.”);
wherein the processor is configured by the authentication software application to cause the EV charger to: authenticate a first communication session with an EV via the charger cable (i.e., …teaches in par. 0022 the following: “an authentication processing unit that performs, after authentication information for performing authentication processing with the electric vehicle” …teaches in par. 0074 the following: “The charging apparatus 40 is means for supplying power to the electric vehicle 50 connected to a plug.”);
send, via the first communication session, encrypted EV charger access credentials to the EV (i.e., …teaches in par. 0122 the following: “when a random number, a ciphertext, and identification information are input from the management apparatus 60 via the communication unit 402, the control unit 404 performs mutual authentication with the electric vehicle 50 by using the random number, the ciphertext, and the identification information”);
receive, via the first communication session, a digital token from the EV (i.e. …teaches in par. 0123 the following: “When the communication path to the electric vehicle 50 is established, the input/output unit 406 receives a public key certificate (hereinafter, a vehicle certificate) transmitted by the electric vehicle 50 and used for authentication processing.”);
verify the digital token (i.e. …teaches in par. 0124 the following: “If verification of the vehicle certificate by the taxing server 20 is successful and verification of the server certificate by the electric vehicle 50 is successful”);
end the first communication session with the EV (i.e., …teaches in par. 0084 the following: “When the electric vehicle 50 and the charging apparatus 40 are connected by a plug (Step 1), the charging apparatus 40 detects the electric vehicle 50 by using the identification information input from the management apparatus 60. When detection of the electric vehicle 50 succeeds, the charging apparatus 40 performs authentication processing as appropriate. The charging apparatus 40 that succeeded in the detection and the authentication processing establishes a communication path between the charging apparatus 40 and the electric vehicle 50 and a communication path between the charging apparatus 40 and the taxing server 20 via the management apparatus 60 (Step 2).”);
after ending the first communication session with the EV (i.e., …teaches in par. 0084 the following: “When the electric vehicle 50 and the charging apparatus 40 are connected by a plug (Step 1), the charging apparatus 40 detects the electric vehicle 50 by using the identification information input from the management apparatus 60. When detection of the electric vehicle 50 succeeds, the charging apparatus 40 performs authentication processing as appropriate. The charging apparatus 40 that succeeded in the detection and the authentication processing establishes a communication path between the charging apparatus 40 and the electric vehicle 50 and a communication path between the charging apparatus 40 and the taxing server 20 via the management apparatus 60 (Step 2).”),
initiate a charging session based upon a command contained within the digital token wherein the EV charger is configured to provide power to the EV via the charger cable during the charging session (i.e., …teaches in par. 0124 the following: “If verification of the vehicle certificate by the taxing server 20 is successful and verification of the server certificate by the electric vehicle 50 is successful, the control unit 404 supplies power input from the power supply unit 408 to the electric vehicle 50 via the input/output unit 406.”);
end the charging session (i.e., …teaches in par. 0125 the following: “When charging of the electric vehicle 50 is completed, the control unit 404 causes the power supply to the electric vehicle 50 to stop”);
store, in the memory, charging session data for the charging session (i.e., …teaches in par. 0125 the following: “the input/output unit 406 receives information about charged watt-hours transmitted by the electric vehicle 50. Then, the input/output unit 406 inputs the information about charged watt-hours received from the electric vehicle 50 to the control unit 404. The control unit 404 transmits the information about charged watt-hours input by the input/output unit 406 to the taxing server 20 via the communication unit 402.”);
authenticate a second communication session with the EV via the charger cable (i.e., …teaches in par. 0098 the following: “When charging of the batteries is completed, the electric vehicle 50 and the taxing server 20 start taxation processing (Step 5). Since authentication is successfully completed in Step 3, the taxing server 20 already correctly recognizes the owner (ID information (the above identification ID.sub.EV) of the electric vehicle 50 contained in the public key certificate C.sub.1) of the electric vehicle 50, and performs taxation processing with this owner as the taxable person.”),
wherein the second communication session is separate from the first communication session (i.e., …teaches in par. 0098 the following: “When charging of the batteries is completed, the electric vehicle 50 and the taxing server 20 start taxation processing (Step 5). The taxation process is a different session that occurs after the first session of charging the vehicle is complete…”);
and through the second communication session with the EV, transfer the charging session data to the EV (i.e., …teaches in par. 0098 the following: “the electric vehicle 50 first transmits information about charged watt-hours to the taxing server 20 (notification of charged watt-hours). After receiving information about charged watt-hours from the electric vehicle 50, the taxing server 20 performs taxation processing based on the charged watt-hours. For example, the taxing server 20 calculates a tax amount in accordance with the charged watt-hours and records the calculated tax amount in association with the owner of the electric vehicle 50. When such taxation processing is completed, the taxing server 20 transmits information indicating completion of taxation processing to the electric vehicle 50 (notification of taxing completion). The electric vehicle 50 receives information indicating completion of taxation processing from the taxing server 20, and maintains a state where the taxation processing is complete (hereinafter, taxing complete state).” The examiner notes that the taxation information transmitted back to the vehicle including the charging session data in the calculations.),
wherein the EV comprises an EV processor and an EV memory containing an EV authentication software application (i.e., …see figure 4 figure element 50 of ISHIBASHI);
wherein the EV processor is configured by the EV authentication software application to cause the EV to: send the authentication request to the EV charger via the charger cable (i.e., …teaches in par. 0188 the following: “After receiving the charging start request m.sub.1 and the digital signature .sigma..sub.2 from the electric vehicle 50,”);
receive the encrypted EV charger access credentials from the EV charger (i.e., …teaches in par. 0085 the following: “performing mutual authentication between the charging apparatus 40 and the electric vehicle 50”);
and send the digital token to the EV charger (i.e., …teaches in par. 0141 the following: “the control unit 506 transmits the vehicle certificate read from the storage unit 508 to the charging apparatus”).
ISHIBASHI does not expressly teach:
forward the charging session data to a server when an internet connection is available to the EV.
In this instance the examiner notes the teachings of prior art reference Levy.
Levy illustrates in figure 5, figure element 155 the forwarding of charge station (i.e., charge session) data to a server.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the of the claimed invention was made to implement the teachings of ISHIBASHI with the teachings of Levy by having their system comprises an enhanced EV communication process. One would have been motivated to do so to provide a simple and effective means to provide a secure data to end users, wherein the enhanced EV communication process helps facilitate better communication security and will make it easier to manage charging session data.
Claim(s) 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ISHIBASHI in view of Levy as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Turner (US Patent Publication No. 2014/0067680).
As to claim 4, the system of ISHIBASHI and Levy as applied to claim above teaches EV charging, specifically neither reference expressly teaches the EV charger of claim 3, wherein the encrypted EV charger access credentials comprise charger ID, time of day, and session time.
In this instance the examiner notes the teachings of prior art reference Turner.
Turner teaches in par. 0046 the following: “The data embedded in the code can include one or more of a unique identification of the EVSE 670 (such as EVSE 240 in FIG. 2) that the user is using to charge their electric vehicle, the charging port that the user is using (if there is more than one charging port on the EVSE 670), the start date/time of the charging session (e.g., the date and time or substantially the date and time of when the charging session data was created, potentially within some acceptable level of accuracy (for instance, .+-.1 minute or less)), and other information that will be used by the back office server application 601 to properly determine the costs to bill the user for this charging session.”.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the of the claimed invention was made to implement the teachings of ISHIBASHI and Levy with the teachings of Turner by having their system comprises an enhanced charging station data report. One would have been motivated to do so to provide a simple and effective means to provide comprehensive vehicle charging records, wherein the enhanced charging station data report helps facilitate better charging session records and will make it easier to identify charging stations.
Claim(s) 9, 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ISHIBASHI in view of Levy as applied to claims 1 and 15 above and further in view of Partovi (US Patent Publication No. 2019/0020210).
As to claims 9 and 16, the system of ISHIBASHI and Levy as applied to claim 8 above teaches EV charging, specifically neither reference expressly teaches the EV charger of claim 8, wherein the charging session data further comprises a status of the EV charger, diagnostics data, temperature data and humidity data.
In this instance the examiner notes the teachings of prior art reference Partovi.
Partovi teaches in par. 0077 the following: “the communicated information can be the output voltage, current, power, device or battery status, validation ID for receiver, end of charge or various charge status information, receiver battery, device, or coil temperature, and/or user data such as information about the user, verification of ability to account and charge a customer for a charging/power service, etc or provide true data communication that can be used to perform system or firmware updates, diagnostics, etc”.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the of the claimed invention was made to implement the teachings of ISHIBASHI and Levy with the teachings of Partovi by having their system comprises an enhanced data provisioning. One would have been motivated to do so to provide a simple and effective means to provide comprehensive charging data recording capability, wherein the enhanced data provisioning process helps facilitate better understanding of the charging data and will make it easier to maintain vehicle charging data records.
As to claim 17, the system of ISHIBASHI and Levy as applied to claim 16 above teaches EV charging, specifically ISHIBASHI teaches the system of claim 16, wherein the EV processor is further configured by the mobile device authentication software application to communicate with the server when a network connection with the server is present (i.e., …teaches in par. 0123 the following: “When the communication path to the electric vehicle 50 is established, the input/output unit 406 receives a public key certificate (hereinafter, a vehicle certificate) transmitted by the electric vehicle 50 and used for authentication processing. Then, the input/output unit 406 inputs the vehicle certificate received from the electric vehicle 50 to the control unit 404. The control unit 404 transmits the vehicle certificate input by the input/output unit 406 to the taxing server 20 via the communication unit 402”).
As to claim 18, (Canceled).
Claim(s) 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ISHIBASHI in view of Levy as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Sakakibara et al. (US Patent Publication No. 2009/0144150 and Sakakibara).
As to claim 14, the system of ISHIBASHI and Levy as applied to claim 13 above teaches EV charging, specifically neither reference expressly teaches the EV charger of claim 13, wherein: the EV charger further comprises a locking mechanism, and the processor is further configured by the authentication software application to cause the EV charger to release the locking mechanism upon ending the charging session.
In this instance the examiner notes the teachings of prior art reference Sakakibara.
Sakakibara teaches in par. 0111 the following: “In charging facility 300, whether or not the account settlement of the fee billed to electric powered vehicle 200 in step S350 has been completed is confirmed (step S270). When the account settlement completion is confirmed (YES is determined in S270), the external charge operation to electric powered vehicle 200 is finished. For example, the configuration can be such that a mechanism that locks the movement of electric powered vehicle 200 during external charge is provided, and at the end of the external charge operation accompanying the account settlement completion, the relevant lock mechanism is released.”.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the of the claimed invention was made to implement the teachings of ISHIBASHI and Levy with the teachings of Sakakibara by having their system comprises an enhanced vehicle charging connection process. One would have been motivated to do so to provide a simple and effective means to provide comprehensive charging capability, wherein the enhanced vehicle charging connection process helps facilitate better connections and will make it more reliable to charge vehicles.
Claim(s) 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ISHIBASHI in view of Levy as applied to claims 1 and 15 above and further in view of Netter (WO2017/071811).
As to claims 19 and 20, the system of ISHIBASHI and Levy as applied to claim 15 above teaches EV charging, specifically neither reference expressly teaches the system of claim 15, wherein the processor is further configured by the authentication software application to cause the EV charger to: receive one or more pieces of firmware from the EV; and perform a firmware update using the one or more pieces of firmware. In this instance the examiner notes the teachings of prior art reference Netter. Netter is noted to disclose in page 2, lines 5-10 the following: “… a control unit of a charging system of an electric vehicle is known, which can perform a software update or firmware update for the charger on the basis of a configuration data set which can be received via an Internet connection or a power supply network”.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the of the claimed invention was made to implement the teachings of ISHIBASHI and Levy with the teachings of Netter by having their system comprises an enhanced system update process. One would have been motivated to do so to provide a simple and effective means to provide system reliability, wherein the enhanced system update process helps facilitate better system performance and will make it easier to maintain system capabilities.
Claim(s) 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ISHIBASHI in view of Levy as applied to claim 15 above and further in view of KANAZAWA( EP 2559588).
As to claim 21, the system of ISHIBASHI and Levy as applied to claim 15 above teaches EV charging, specifically neither reference expressly teaches the system of claim 15, wherein: the EV charger further comprises a locking mechanism, and the processor is further configured by the authentication software application to cause the EV charger to release the locking mechanism upon ending the charging session.
In this instance the examiner notes the teachings of prior art reference KANAZAWA.
KANAZAWA teaches as part of claim 1 claim limitation element(s) the following: “the detection signal which indicates that the operation for releasing the lock mechanism has been performed is input from the connection state detection signal generating unit”.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the of the claimed invention was made to implement the teachings of ISHIBASHI and Levy with the teachings of KANAZAWA by having their system comprises an enhanced power delivery process. One would have been motivated to do so to provide a simple and effective means to provide safe power transfer capability, wherein the enhanced power delivery process helps facilitate user safety and will make it easier to provide charging power to a EV.
Claim(s) 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ISHIBASHI in view of Levy as applied to claim 15 above and further in view of Windstrup et al. (US Patent Publication No. 2012/0169511 and Windstrup hereinafter).
As to claim 22, the system of ISHIBASHI and Levy as applied to claim 15 above teaches EV charging, specifically neither reference expressly teaches the system of claim 15, wherein the processor is further configured by the authentication software application to cause the EV charger to collect the charging session data.
In this instance the examiner notes the teachings of prior art reference Windstrup.
Windstrup teaches in par. 0047 the following: “The smart EV charger 720 may collect information about the current state of the battery 732, target charge point, estimated charging times and/or completion times as well as other information in some embodiments. The smart EV charge 720 may send the information across the network 740 to the networked controller 750 and/or to a gateway or computer. Depending on the embodiment, the information related to the EV charging may be stored on the multi-mode device 100 or elsewhere. If the multi-mode display 100 is in the car charging operating mode 650, the information from the smart EV charger 720 may be displayed on the monochrome LCD 210 by the networked controller 750.”.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the of the claimed invention was made to implement the teachings of ISHIBASHI and Levy with the teachings of Windstrup by having their system comprises an enhanced data management process. One would have been motivated to do so to provide a simple and effective means to provide a secure data transferring process, wherein the enhanced data management process helps facilitate data security and will make it easier to store charging session data.
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRYAN F WRIGHT whose telephone number is (571)270-3826.
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, Eleni Shiferaw can be reached on (571)272-3867. 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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.
/BRYAN F WRIGHT/Examiner, Art Unit 2497
Prosecution Insights