DETAILED ACTION
This action is in reply to the original application filed on 07/06/2026.
Claims 1-2 are rejected.
Claims 1-2 are currently pending and have been examined.
Priority
This patent Application claims priority to U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 61/937,402 filed 02/07/2014. This benefit has been received and acknowledged and therefore, the instant claims receive the effective filing date of 02/07/2014.
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 § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Under Step 1 of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test for Products and Processes, the claims must be directed to one of the four statutory categories (see MPEP 2106.03). All the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories (YES).
Under Step 2A of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test, it is determined whether the claims are directed to a judicially recognized exception (see MPEP 2106.04). Step 2A is a two-prong inquiry.
Under Prong 1, it is determined whether the claim recites a judicial exception (YES). Taking Claim 1 as representative, the claim recites limitations that fall within the certain methods of organizing human activity groupings of abstract ideas, including:
-receiving a request from a first [user associated with a first] electric vehicle parked proximate to the charging station to be charged by the charging station;
-determining that a second electric vehicle also parked proximate to the charging station is currently charging at the charging station;
-sending a message from the charging interface system to a mobile device [second user] associated with the second electric vehicle that includes a request to connect the first electric vehicle to the charging station after the second electric vehicle has finished charging at the charging station;
-determining that the first electric vehicle has been connected to the charging station; and
-causing the charging station to begin charging the first electric vehicle
The above limitations recite the concept of sending a message to a customer currently charging their EV to connect a second EV once their EV is finished charging. The above limitations fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” groupings of abstract ideas, enumerated in MPEP 2106.04(a).
Certain methods of organizing human activity include:
fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, and mitigating risk)
commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; and business relations)
managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions)
The limitations of receiving a request from a first [user associated with a first] electric vehicle parked proximate to the charging station to be charged by the charging station; determining that a second electric vehicle also parked proximate to the charging station is currently charging at the charging station; and determining that the first electric vehicle has been connected to the charging station are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. For example, “receiving,” “determining,” and “determining” in the context of this claim encompass social activities and following rules or instructions.
Similarly, the limitations of sending a message from the charging interface system to a mobile device [second user] associated with the second electric vehicle that includes a request to connect the first electric vehicle to the charging station after the second electric vehicle has finished charging at the charging station; and causing the charging station to begin charging the first electric vehicle are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. That is, other than reciting that the message is sent from the charging interface system to a mobile device and that charging station was caused to begin charging, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed by people. For example, but for the “charging interface system,” “mobile device,” and “causing the charging station to begin charging” language, “sending” and “causing” in the context of this claim encompasses social activities and following rules or instructions.
Under Prong 2, it is determined whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application (NO).
-receiving a request from a first electric vehicle parked proximate to the charging station to be charged by the charging station;
-determining that a second electric vehicle also parked proximate to the charging station is currently charging at the charging station;
-sending a message from the charging interface system to a mobile device associated with the second electric vehicle that includes a request to connect the first electric vehicle to the charging station after the second electric vehicle has finished charging at the charging station;
-determining that the first electric vehicle has been connected to the charging station; and
-causing the charging station to begin charging the first electric vehicle
These limitations are not indicative of integration into a practical application because:
The additional elements of claim 1 are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as generic computing hardware) such that they amount to nothing more than mere instructions to implement or apply the abstract idea on a generic computing hardware (or, merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea) as supported by paragraph [0043] of Applicant’s specification – “aspects of the system are described in the general context of computer-executable instructions, such as routines executed by a general-purpose computer, e.g., mobile device, a server computer, or personal computer.” Specifically, the additional elements of a non-transitory computer readable medium, a charging interface system, a mobile device, and causing the charging station to begin charging are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e. as a generic processor performing the generic computer functions of receiving data, determining data, sending data, causing charging) such that they amount do no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. Further, the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (such as computers or computing networks). Employing well-known computer functions to execute an abstract idea, even when limiting the use of the idea to one particular environment, does not integrate the exception into a practical application.
Additionally, the additional elements are insufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claim fails to i) reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, ii) apply the judicial exception with, or use the judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, iii) effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or iv) apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Accordingly, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Under Step 2B, it is determined whether the claims recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claims of the present application do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (NO).
In the case of claim 1, taken individually or as a whole, the additional elements of claim 1 do not provide an inventive concept. As discussed above under step 2A (prong 2) with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements used to perform the claimed functions amount to no more than a general link to a technological environment.
Even considered as an ordered combination (as a whole), the additional elements do not add anything significantly more than when considered individually.
Dependent claim 2 when analyzed as a whole, is held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because it does not add “significantly more” to the abstract idea. More specifically, dependent claim 2 further falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas in that they recite managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. Dependent claim 2 recites the additional elements of a mobile device, but similar to the analysis under prong two of Step 2A these additional elements are used as a tool to perform the abstract idea. As such, under prong two of Step 2A, claim 2 is not indicative of integration into a practical application for at least similar reasons as discussed above. Thus, dependent claim 2 is “directed to” an abstract idea. Next, under Step 2B, similar to the analysis of claim 1, dependent claim 2 when analyzed individually and as an ordered combination, merely further define the commonplace business method (i.e. sending a message to a customer currently charging their EV to connect a second EV once their EV is finished charging) being applied on a general-purpose computer and, therefore, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Accordingly, the Examiner concludes that there are no meaningful limitations in the claims that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. The analysis above applies to all statutory categories of invention.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khoo et al. (US 2013/0110296 A1), hereinafter Khoo, in view of Oda et al. (US 2013/0069588 A1), hereinafter Oda.
Regarding claim 1, Khoo discloses a non-transitory computer readable medium whose contents, when executed by a charging interface system associated with a charging station, cause the charging interface system to perform a method of charging electric vehicles using the charging station, the method comprising:
-receiving a request from a first electric vehicle to be charged by the charging station (Khoo, see at least: “a second user 870 obtains a reservation ticket for charging an electric vehicle at the charging station 890 [i.e. receiving a request from a first electric vehicle to be charged by the charging station]. While the second user 870 may obtain the reservation ticket after the first user 840 begins charging the electric vehicle 850 or occupying the charging space 820” [0127] and “the electrical charging system 100 includes a charging station 190 for an electric vehicle 130, which uses a mobile device 140 of a user 160 to communicate with a cloud server 110. The mobile device 140 may be a cell phone, but other implementations are imagined such as an iPad, a Personal Digital Assistant, a personal computer, a component/module of the electric vehicle 130 [i.e. from a first electric vehicle]” [0063]);
-determining that a second electric vehicle parked proximate to the charging station is currently charging at the charging station (Khoo, see at least: “At step 910, a first user 840 occupies a charging space 820 at the charging station 890 with an electric vehicle 850. Each charging station may be divided into several charging spaces, where each charging space has room for an electric vehicle to attach to a charging coupler [i.e. parked proximate to the charging station]. In some implementations, a charging space may be open for anyone to drive up and use the space to charge their electric vehicle” [0125] and “the first user 840 initiates the charging of the electric vehicle 850 [i.e. determining that a second electric vehicle parked proximate to the charging station is currently charging at the charging station]” [0126]);
-sending a message from the charging interface system to a mobile device associated with the second electric vehicle that includes a request to connect the first electric vehicle to the charging station after the second electric vehicle has finished charging at the charging station (Khoo, see at least: “the second user 870 contacts the first user 840 through the cloud server 810 [i.e. sending a message from the charging interface system to a mobile device associated with the second electric vehicle]. For example, the second user 870 may communicate a request through the cloud server 810 to the first user 840 for obtaining the first user's 840 remaining reservation ticket [i.e. that includes a request to connect the first electric vehicle to the charging station after the second electric vehicle has finished charging at the charging station]. If the second user 870 wants the first user's 840 reservation time at the charging station 890, the second user 870 may inquire if the first user 840 would be willing to change, modify, or transfer his reservation ticket to him. The transaction may occur between users in real time … the cloud server 810 may use a variety of different communication methods to facilitate communication between users, including email, digital voice communication, plain old telephone service, instant messaging, push notifications, pop up messaging, an internet website, a chat room, an internet forum, short messaging service (SMS) text messaging [i.e. a mobile device associated with the second electric vehicle], or any other method” [0144]; Examiner notes that the request is for the remaining reservation ticket and occurs in real time so the request occurs while first user is charging their vehicle [i.e. a mobile device associated with the second electric vehicle]);
-determining that the first electric vehicle has been connected to the charging station (Khoo, see at least: “If the charging station 1190 uses geolocation method 1145 on an empty charging space 1170, the charging station 1190 may report to the cloud server 1110 that the charging space 1170 is available for a new electric vehicle. If an electric vehicle 1140 connects to the charging station 1190 via a charging coupler 665 [i.e. determining that the first electric vehicle has been connected to the charging station] and begins charging the vehicle's battery, then the charging station 1190 determines using geolocation method 1145 that the electric vehicle 647 occupies the charging space 1140” [0167] and “the first user 840 grants or denies the second user's 870 request for the remaining reservation ticket. The charging station 890 may act according to the grant or denial. For example, the cloud server 810 may transfer the reservation ticket from the first user to the second user if the request is granted [i.e. the first electric vehicle]” [0147]); and
-causing the charging station to begin charging the first electric vehicle (Khoo, see at least: “If the charging station 1190 uses geolocation method 1145 on an empty charging space 1170, the charging station 1190 may report to the cloud server 1110 that the charging space 1170 is available for a new electric vehicle. If an electric vehicle 1140 connects to the charging station 1190 via a charging coupler 665 and begins charging the vehicle's battery [i.e. causing the charging station to begin charging the first electric vehicle], then the charging station 1190 determines using geolocation method 1145 that the electric vehicle 647 occupies the charging space 1140” [0167] and “the first user 840 grants or denies the second user's 870 request for the remaining reservation ticket. The charging station 890 may act according to the grant or denial. For example, the cloud server 810 may transfer the reservation ticket from the first user to the second user if the request is granted [i.e. the first electric vehicle]” [0147]).
Khoo does not explicitly disclose the first electric vehicle being parked proximate to the charging station; and the second electric vehicle also parked proximate to the charging station.
Oda, however, teaches providing a charger for an electric vehicle (i.e. abstract) including the known technique of a first electric vehicle parked proximate to the charging station to be charged by the charging station (Oda, see at least: “the quick charging stands 20 may be installed so that one quick charging stand 20 can be shared by cars parked at two adjacent parking spaces 40 [i.e. a first electric vehicle parked proximate to the charging station to be charged by the charging station]” [0048]); and
the known technique of a second electric vehicle also parked proximate to the charging station (Oda, see at least: “the quick charging stands 20 may be installed so that one quick charging stand 20 can be shared by cars parked at two adjacent parking spaces 40 [i.e. a second electric vehicle also parked proximate to the charging station]” [0048]). These known techniques are applicable to the non-transitory computer readable medium of Khoo as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to providing a charger for an electric vehicle.
It would have been recognized that applying the known techniques of a first electric vehicle parked proximate to the charging station to be charged by the charging station; and a second electric vehicle also parked proximate to the charging station, as taught by Oda, to the teachings of Khoo would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such references into similar non-transitory computer readable mediums. Further, adding the modifications of a first electric vehicle parked proximate to the charging station to be charged by the charging station; and a second electric vehicle also parked proximate to the charging station, as taught by Oda, into the non-transitory computer readable medium of Khoo would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved non-transitory computer readable medium that would result in downsizing and space-saving (Oda, [0062]).
Regarding claim 2, Khoo in view Oda teaches the non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 1. Khoo further discloses:
-wherein determining that the first electric vehicle is connected to the charging station includes receiving a message from a mobile device associated with the first electric vehicle that the first electric vehicle has been connected to the charging station (Khoo, see at least: “At step 410, the process starts, i.e., the mobile device 140 connects to the charging station 190 … Also, the connection may utilize power line communication over a charging coupler between the electric vehicle 130 and the charging station 190 [i.e. that the first electric vehicle has been connected to the charging station]” [0085] and “At step 430, the charging station 190 sends an identification and request for charging the electric vehicle 130 to the cloud server 110” [0092] and “the user 160 may identify the charging station 190 physically on site [i.e. that the first electric vehicle has been connected to the charging station] and input this identification into his mobile device 140. In this implementation, the mobile device 140 would send the keyed-in identification to the cloud server 110 [i.e. receiving a message from a mobile device associated with the first electric vehicle] for verification” [0095]).
Response to Arguments
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. §101
Applicant argues that claims 1-2 are directed to a specific technical solution for improving the operational efficiency of electric vehicle charging stations through automated, system-mediated handoff of a charging session between vehicles. When a first EV that is waiting and parked proximate to the station requests charging at an occupied station, the charging interface system detects the currently charging second EV, proactively sends a targeted message to the second user's mobile device instructing connection of the waiting EV after the current session ends, detects when the first EV has been physically connected to the station including via a confirmation message from the first user's mobile device as required by Claim 2, and automatically transmits a control signal that causes the physical charging station to begin charging the new vehicle. This closed-loop technical process solves the real-world problems of charger hogging, manual coordination friction, and under-utilization of scarce public charging infrastructure. It is a concrete automated control method executed by a charging interface system that directly interacts with charging station hardware, mobile devices, and connection status detection to achieve dynamic resource allocation (Remarks, page 3).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Charger hogging, manual coordination friction, and under-utilization of scarce public charging infrastructure do not reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field. For instance, the addition elements themselves (e.g. the charging station hardware, mobile devices, etc.) are not improved, they are merely utilized to implement the abstract idea. Accordingly, the claims are directed to an abstract idea and are not integrated into a practical application.
Applicant further argues that the claims do not recite a judicial exception under Step 2A Prong One. Examiner’s characterization is an oversimplification that improperly strips away the technical context and specific limitations of the claims. The claims do not merely recite managing personal behavior or generic social coordination. Instead they recite a specific automated technical process performed by a charging interface system associated with a charging
station that includes receiving a request from a first EV that is physically parked proximate to the station, determining the real-time charging status of a second EV also parked proximate to the same station, generating and sending a targeted system-initiated message containing a precise handoff instruction, detecting physical connection of the first EV to the station including via mobile device confirmation, and transmitting a control signal that causes the physical charging station hardware to begin charging the new vehicle. These limitations taken as a whole are directed to improving the functioning of EV charging infrastructure through automated detection notification connection verification and hardware actuation. They are not analogous to the examples in MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2) such as fundamental economic practices commercial interactions or following rules or instructions in the abstract. The message here is not generic human communication. It is a technical control instruction within a closed-loop system that directly affects physical charging station operation (Remarks, page 4).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The recited limitations fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” groupings of abstract ideas, enumerated in MPEP 2106.04(a), as they cover managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people in that they encompass social activities and following rules or instructions. Additionally, the examples in MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2) are examples and are not limiting. Merely automating the abstract idea does not reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field and the claims do not provide an improvement of the physical charging station technology itself. Accordingly, the claims are directed to an abstract idea and are not integrated into a practical application.
Applicant further argues that, assuming arguendo that a judicial exception is recited the claims integrate it into a practical application that improves another technology or technical field specifically the operation and utilization efficiency of EV charging stations and networks under MPEP § 2106.05(a). The additional elements are not recited at a high level of generality as mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Rather the charging interface system associated with a charging station actively monitors station status generates proactive handoff messages receives connection confirmations and transmits control signals to the physical station hardware. The ordered combination enables dynamic automated queuing and session handoff without requiring constant human monitoring or manual intervention by drivers. This directly improves charging station throughput reduces downtime between sessions and solves a technical problem in EV infrastructure of scarce chargers and inefficient turnover (Remarks, pages 4-5).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Monitoring data and sending messages and signals can be done by any generic computing components. Merely automating the abstract idea amounts to nothing more than mere instructions to implement or apply the abstract idea on a generic computing hardware (or, merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea) and does no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (such as computers or computing networks). Even considered as an ordered combination (as a whole), the additional elements do not add anything significantly more than when considered individually. Furthermore, scarcity of chargers and user turnover are not technical problems, they’re business problems. Accordingly, the claims are not integrated into a practical application.
Applicant further argues that claim 2’s recitation that connection detection includes receiving a message from the first user's mobile device adds a concrete verifiable technical confirmation mechanism that integrates the process with real-world hardware and user devices. These features reflect an improvement in the functioning of charging station systems and EV charging networks analogous to improvements recognized in cases such as DDR Holdings LLC v. Hotels.com for a technical solution to a technical problem in computer or network resource management and Enfish LLC v. Microsoft Corp. for an improvement to computer functionality. The claims do not merely link the alleged idea to the technological environment of EVs. They use specific technical elements of proximity detection status determination targeted mobile messaging connection sensing and station control signaling to achieve a tangible improvement in charging resource allocation. The Examiner's statement that the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components ignores the specific integration with charging station hardware control and the automated handoff sequence. This is not generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Accordingly the claims are not directed to a judicial exception under Step 2A (Remarks, page 5).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The confirmation message being received from the user’s mobile device amounts to nothing more than mere instructions to implement or apply the abstract idea on a generic computing hardware (or, merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea). Additionally, determining proximity is not an additional element and merely utilizing a mobile device and a charging station to send and receive data amounts to nothing more than mere instructions to implement or apply the abstract idea on a generic computing hardware (or, merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea).
In DDR, the claims overcome a problem or propose a solution “specifically arising in the realm of computer [technology]” DDR Holdings, 773 F.3d at 1257. In Enfish the storing of tabular data is specifically directed to a self-referential table. Thus, the claims were “directed to a specific improvement to the way computers operate,” rather than utilizing a computer as a means for implementing an abstract idea. Id at 1336. Unlike DDR and Enfish, the claim fails to reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field (i.e. the charging interface system, the mobile device, and the charging station themselves are not improved they are merely utilized). Accordingly, the claims are ineligible.
Applicant further argues that, even if the claims were found directed to an abstract idea the elements considered individually and as an ordered combination amount to significantly more than the alleged exception under MPEP § 2106.05. The specific combination of receiving a proximate-EV request determining current charger status proactively issuing a handoff instruction via mobile message confirming physical connection and automatically actuating the charging station is not well-understood routine or conventional in the field of EV charging systems. It provides an inventive technical solution for automated session handoff that was not present in the prior art. The rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 should be withdrawn.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Even considered as an ordered combination (as a whole), the additional elements do not add anything significantly more than when considered individually. merely utilizing a mobile device and a charging station to send and receive data amounts to nothing more than mere instructions to implement or apply the abstract idea on a generic computing hardware (or, merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea). Additionally, the claims do not recite automatically actuating the charging station. Furthermore, session handoff is not a technical field as, in the context of the claims, it amounts to social activities and following rules or instructions, and novelty is not the test for eligibility. Accordingly, the claims are ineligible.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. §103
Applicant argues that Examiner has failed to establish a prima facie case of obviousness under MPEP §§ 2141 through 2143. Khoo describes a reservation or ticket-based system in which users may contact each other via cloud server SMS push notifications or similar means to inquire about or transfer remaining reservation time while one user is charging or occupying a spot. The communication in Khoo is primarily user-initiated negotiation or ticket transfer not a system proactive automated message generated by a charging interface system that specifically instructs the current user to physically connect a waiting EV after finishing. Khoo does not teach or suggest the claimed sequence of system detection of a waiting EV that is parked proximate and requesting immediate access determination of the current charging status of another proximate EV issuance of a targeted handoff request message and automatic causation of charging station activation upon confirmed connection of the new EV. The request in Khoo is for remaining reservation time or ticket modification not a specific instruction to connect another vehicle's charger after the current session ends. Khoo' s system does not automatically cause the charging station to begin charging the new vehicle upon connection detection in the manner claimed. Oda teaches a physical hardware arrangement in which a single quick-charging stand can be shared by vehicles parked in two adjacent parking spaces. This is a static hardware layout disclosure. Oda contains no teaching of any software logic messaging system status determination proactive handoff messages connection detection or automated station activation. It does not suggest the dynamic system-mediated handoff process of Claim 1. There is no motivation or suggestion in either reference or the knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Khoo' s user-communication features with Oda' s physical sharing layout to arrive at the specific automated handoff method of Claim 1. The Examiner's rationale that Oda merely supplies the parked proximate concept does not address the core inventive aspects of the proactive system-generated handoff instruction the precise post finish connection request the connection confirmation mechanism and the automatic station control to begin charging the new vehicle. These elements are not taught or suggested by the combination. The claimed invention produces unexpected results in the field of significantly improved charger utilization reduced driver friction and automated session continuity that neither reference contemplates or enables. Claim 1 is therefore not obvious over the cited combination (Remarks, pages 6-7).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims don’t recite detection of a waiting EV that is parked proximate and requesting immediate access determination of the current charging status of another proximate EV issuance of a targeted handoff request message and automatic causation of charging station activation upon confirmed connection of the new EV, nor do they recite automatically causing the charging station to begin charging the new vehicle upon connection detection. The claims further do not recite “software logic messaging system status determination proactive handoff messages connection detection or automated station activation” and “the proactive system-generated handoff instruction the precise post finish connection request the connection confirmation mechanism and the automatic station control to begin charging the new vehicle.” Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Additionally, Khoo discloses that the system sends a message to a user that has reserved and is currently using the charging station, a message from a user who is waiting to charge their vehicle indicating that they are requesting the remaining charging time of the user currently charging their vehicle, as well as, that the charging station can determine when a vehicle is plugged in and that once the vehicle is plugged, it begins to charge the vehicle (see Khoo, [0127], [0063], [0125], [0126], [0144], [0167], and [0147]). Oda is merely brought in to modify the location of the first electric vehicle to be parked proximate to the charging station and the location of the second electric vehicle to also be parked proximate to the charging station (see Oda, [0048]). Both Khoo and Oda are directed to providing a charger for an electric vehicle and modifying the vehicle locations of Khoo with the vehicle locations of Oda would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in downsizing and space-saving (Oda, [0062]).
Furthermore, in order to establish unexpected results the“evidence relied upon should establish "that the differences in results are in fact unexpected and unobvious and of both statistical and practical significance." Ex parte Gelles, 22 USPQ2d 1318, 1319 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1992) (Mere conclusions in appellants’ brief that the claimed polymer had an unexpectedly increased impact strength "are not entitled to the weight of conclusions accompanying the evidence, either in the specification or in a declaration."); Ex parte C, 27 USPQ2d 1492 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1992)” [emphasis added] (see MPEP 716.02(b)(I)). Applicant has merely provided a conclusory statement without providing evidence.
Accordingly, the cited references teach the recited claims.
Applicant further argues that claim 2 further requires that determining the first EV has been connected includes receiving a message from a mobile device associated with the first electric vehicle confirming the connection. This adds a concrete verifiable technical confirmation step that is not taught or suggested by Khoo whose communications are primarily reservation or ticket related or by Oda which contains no messaging or confirmation logic. Claim 2 is likewise non-obvious (Remarks, page 7).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Khoo discloses that, after the user connects the vehicle to the charging station [i.e. determining the first EV has been connected], the user sends a message to the server identifying the charging station to verify that the vehicle is now being charged at the identified charging station [i.e. includes receiving a message from a mobile device associated with the first electric vehicle confirming the connection] (see Khoo, [0085], [0092] and [0095]). Accordingly, the cited references teach the recited claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
-Karner et al. (US 2013/0127416 A1) teaches interfacing with an electric vehicle charging station.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARIELLE E WEINER whose telephone number is (571)272-9007. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:00.
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, Maria-Teresa (Marissa) Thein can be reached at 571-272-6764. 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.
/ARIELLE E WEINER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3689
Prosecution Insights