Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 8/21/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 – 8, 10, & 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The determination of whether a claim recites patent ineligible subject matter is a 2 step inquiry.
STEP 1: the claim does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter), see MPEP 2106.03, or
STEP 2: the claim recites a judicial exception, e.g. an abstract idea, without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as determined using the following analysis: see MPEP 2106.04
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? see MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1)
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? see MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2) and 2106.05(a) thru (d) for explanations.
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? see MPEP 2106.05
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 1 is directed to a charging assembly exchanging safety information with a vehicle [i.e. a machine]. Therefore, claim 1 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes. see MPEP 2106(A)(II)(1) and MPEP 2106.04(a)-(c)
Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below [with the category of abstract idea in brackets]) and will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejection. Claim 1 recites:
A charging assembly for autonomous vehicles comprising:
- a charging docking station configured to be arranged fixedly in a working area, said charging docking station comprising a battery charger,
a first operating safety monitor configured to generate and transmit operating safety information, and
a first wireless communication transmitter configured to receive said operating safety information transmitted by the first operating safety monitor and to generate and transmit a safety frame comprising said operating safety information; [mental process/step]
- an autonomous-navigation vehicle configured to move in the working area, said vehicle comprising a rechargeable electric battery able to be electrically connected to the terminals of the battery charger,
a second operating safety monitor connected to the rechargeable electric battery, and
a second wireless communication transmitter configured to receive said safety frame comprising said safety information transmitted by the first wireless communication transmitter and to
transmit said safety information to the second operating safety monitor, said second operating safety monitor being configured to process said operating safety information. [mental process/step]
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. For example, “generate… a safety frame…” in the context of this claim encompasses a person looking at data collected rearranging the data into another format, which is a mental process under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim. Further, the limitation “process said operating safety information” in the context of the claim encompasses a person looking at safety data collected and forming a simple judgement. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. see MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2) and MPEP 2106.04(d)(2). It must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” [with a description of the additional limitations in brackets], while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”.):
A charging assembly for autonomous vehicles comprising:
- a charging docking station configured to be arranged fixedly in a working area, said charging docking station comprising a battery charger, [applying the abstract idea using generic components, Apply it 2106.05(f)]
a first operating safety monitor [applying the abstract idea using generic computing module, Apply it 2106.05(f)] configured to generate and transmit operating safety information, and [pre-solution activity (data gathering) 2106.05(g)]
a first wireless communication transmitter configured to receive said operating safety information transmitted by the first operating safety monitor [applying the abstract idea using generic computing module, Apply it 2106.05(f), pre-solution activity (data gathering) 2106.05(g)] and to generate and transmit [insignificant post-solution activity (outputting results of the mental process) 2106.05(g)] a safety frame comprising said operating safety information;
- an autonomous-navigation vehicle configured to move in the working area, said vehicle comprising a rechargeable electric battery able to be electrically connected to the terminals of the battery charger, [applying the abstract idea using generic components, Apply it 2106.05(f)]
a second operating safety monitor connected to the rechargeable electric battery, and [applying the abstract idea using generic components, Apply it 2106.05(f)]
a second wireless communication transmitter configured to receive said safety frame comprising said safety information transmitted by the first wireless communication transmitter and to [applying the abstract idea using generic computing module, Apply it 2106.05(f), pre-solution activity (data gathering) 2106.05(g)]
transmit said safety information to the second operating safety monitor, said second operating safety monitor being configured to [insignificant post-solution activity (outputting results of the mental process) 2106.05(g)] process said operating safety information.
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations of “a charging docking station…,” “a first operating safety monitor…,” “a first wireless communication transmitter,” “an autonomous-navigation vehicle….” “a second operating safety monitor…” “a second wireless communication transmitter…,” and “transmit said safety information…,” the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use a computer or other generic components well-known in the art to perform the process. In particular, the “a charging docking station…” and “an autonomous-navigation vehicle….” are recited at a high level of generality, as a generic charging station and autonomous vehicle that are used to perform the steps of the claimed invention, which merely links the claimed invention to a field of use with instructions to apply the exception using said components. Further, the limitation “configured to generate and transmit…” in the context of the claim encompasses mere data gathering and provision of safety information, which is insignificant extra-solution activity. The limitation “transmit said safety information…,” in the context of the claim encompasses outputting the results of the mental process of extracting information from the safety frame received, or alternatively gathering data for use in the subsequent “process” mental evaluation, either of which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The limitations “a first wireless communication transmitter,” and “a second wireless communication transmitter…,” in the context of the claim encompass generic transmission/reception components used to implement the abstract idea which merely links the claimed invention to a field of use with instructions to apply the exception using said components. Lastly, the “a first operating safety monitor…,” and “a second operating safety monitor…,” are each recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that each limitation amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or 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, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. see MPEP § 2106.05. Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the Revised Guidance, representative independent claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a computing elements to perform the steps of the mental process amounts to nothing more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. And as discussed above, the additional limitations of a charging docking station…,” “a first operating safety monitor…,” “a first wireless communication transmitter,” “an autonomous-navigation vehicle….” “a second operating safety monitor…” “a second wireless communication transmitter…,” and “transmit said safety information…,” the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities.
Dependent claim(s) 2 – 8, 10, & 13 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Specifically:
Claim 2 recites wherein position information is transmitted from the docking station to the vehicle, the vehicle then computing the relative location of the vehicle to the charging docking station based on said information, which is a mental process of making a judgement based on data collected [which is insignificant extra-solution activity] under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim.
Claim 3 recites wherein a position of a vehicle is determined by triangulation following receiving position information from at least three docking stations, which is a mental process of making a judgement based on data collected [which is insignificant extra-solution activity] under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim.
Claim 4 recites wherein the wireless communication transmitters are wireless radio transmitter with periodic communication, which merely constrains the generic components utilized to apply the abstract idea into a narrower embodiment that remains generic.
Claim 5 recites wherein the wireless communication transmitters are wireless radio transceivers configured to both transmit and receive information, which merely constrains the generic components utilized to apply the abstract idea into a narrower embodiment that remains generic.
Claim 6 recites wherein the second (vehicle) wireless transmitter is configured to transmit both vehicle status and location information, which encompasses mere data gathering and provision of information, which is insignificant extra-solution activity.
Claim 7 recites wherein the safety frame is generated via encapsulating information, which is interpreted by decapsulating the safety frame, which is a mental process of transforming information into a different format without significantly more under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim.
Claim 8 recites wherein an emergency stop button is connected to the first operating safety monitor, which merely recites applying the exception with a generic component well known in the art, without reciting significantly more [such as how the control of the emergency stop button affects the system].
Claim 10 recites wherein the system includes an electricity network for supplying power to the charging docking station, which merely recites applying the exception using electric power with a generic component well known in the art, without reciting significantly more, which is mere instructions to apply the exception under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim.
Claim 13 recites wherein an emergency stop button generates the safety information, which merely recites the generation of data to be transferred, which encompasses mere data gathering and provision of safety information, which is insignificant extra-solution activity.
Therefore, dependent claims 2 – 8, 10, & 13 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of [independent claim].
Therefore, claim(s) 1 – 8, 10, & 13 is/are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 5, & 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boisen (US 2020/0346554 A1) in view of Zheng (CN 103415082 B).
Regarding Claim 1:
Boisen discloses: A charging assembly for autonomous vehicles comprising: (Boisen discloses in at least Paragraph 0022 a communication system enabling bidirectional communication between a vehicle and charging station, including communication between the safety systems of each. At least Paragraph 0033 of Boisen further discloses wherein autonomous driving information may be transmitted from the vehicle, rendering the vehicle an autonomous vehicle in an embodiment [i.e. the system is a charging assembly for autonomous vehicles])
- a charging docking station configured to be arranged fixedly in a working area, said charging docking station comprising a battery charger, (Boisen discloses in at least Paragraphs 0022, 0038, & 0046 wherein a charging station may be placed within a classified area [i.e. a charging docking station configured to be arranged fixedly in a working area] may include a charging cable configured to charge the electrical battery of a vehicle [i.e. said charging docking station comprising a battery charger])
a first operating safety monitor configured to generate and transmit operating safety information, and (Boisen discloses in at least Paragraphs 0022 & 0028 wherein the station may include a station safety system [i.e. a first operating safety monitor], configured to receive information from a plurality of sensors reflecting conditions in the charging station, and send information to a station electronic control unit/station bus [i.e. generate and transmit operating safety information])
a first wireless communication transmitter configured to receive said operating safety information transmitted by the first operating safety monitor and; (Boisen discloses in at least Paragraph 0024 wherein a station bus may be used to connect a station safety system [i.e. a first operating safety monitor] to a station electronic control unit, which may communicate with a vehicle electronic control unit wirelessly over an NFC link, via a station NFC transceiver [i.e. a first wireless communication transmitter] and a corresponding vehicle NFC transceiver [i.e. a second wireless communication transmitter as set forth below] to communicate information from the station safety system to the vehicle safety system as disclosed in at least Paragraph 0025 [i.e. a first wireless communication transmitter receives operating safety information transmitted by the first operating safety monitor to transmit to the vehicle])
- an autonomous-navigation vehicle configured to move in the working area, said vehicle comprising a rechargeable electric battery able to be electrically connected to the terminals of the battery charger, (Boisen discloses in at least Paragraphs 0022 & 0092 wherein a vehicle may be equipped with an electrical battery that can be charged by the charging station via a charging cable [i.e. the vehicle comprising a rechargeable electric battery able to be electrically connected to the terminals of the battery charger]. At least Paragraph 0033 of Boisen further discloses wherein autonomous driving information may be transmitted from the vehicle, rendering the vehicle an autonomous vehicle in an embodiment [i.e. an autonomous-navigation vehicle configured to move in the working area])
a second operating safety monitor connected to the rechargeable electric battery, and (Boisen discloses in at least Paragraphs 0023 & 0028 wherein a vehicle may include a vehicle safety system [i.e. a second operating safety monitor] configured to monitor conditions at the vehicle, including temperature, as well as other status indicators for the vehicle battery as disclosed in at least Paragraphs 0092 & 0093 [i.e. a second operating safety monitor connected to the rechargeable electric battery])
a second wireless communication transmitter configured to receive said safety frame comprising said safety information transmitted by the first wireless communication transmitter and (Boisen discloses in at least Paragraph 0025 wherein a vehicle may include a vehicle NFC transceiver [i.e. a second wireless communication transmitter], configured to wirelessly communication with the aforementioned station NFC transceiver to receive data transmitted from the station electronic control unit [i.e. the second wireless communication transmitter configured to receive said safety frame comprising said safety information transmitted by the first wireless communication transmitter])
to transmit said safety information to the second operating safety monitor, said second operating safety monitor being configured to process said operating safety information. (Boisen discloses in at least Paragraph 0025 wherein the vehicle NFC transceiver [i.e. the second wireless communication transmitter] is configured to receive data from the station safety system, and provide said information to the vehicle safety system [i.e. to transmit said safety information to the second operating safety monitor]. At least Paragraphs 0033, 0055, & 0057 of Boisen further disclose wherein the communications from the station, including safety information such as a watchdog timer, may be received by the vehicle data unit or safety module, and responded to as further disclosed in at least Paragraph 0075 [i.e. said second operating safety monitor being configured to process said operating safety information]. At least Figure 2A of Boisen, below, further depicts the configuration of the above-described system, including the respective station and vehicle systems, as well as the communication zone therebetween)
PNG
media_image1.png
462
682
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Boisen however appears to be silent regarding:
Wherein a first wireless communication transmitter is configured to generate and transmit a safety frame comprising said operating safety information
However Zheng teaches wherein a roadside unit may write and encapsulate information that an RSU needs to transfer to a vehicle node into a management frame prior to transmission to the vehicle node.
Wherein a first wireless communication transmitter is configured to generate and transmit a safety frame comprising said operating safety information (However Zheng teaches in at least Paragraph 0097 wherein a roadside unit may write and encapsulate information that an RSU needs to transfer to a vehicle node into a management frame [i.e. a safety frame which is generated by the first wireless communication transmitter], which may be broadcast during a communication process to vehicle nodes as taught in at least Paragraph 0101 [i.e. the safety frame is transmitted once generated]. Upon receipt by the vehicle node, the management frame is decapsulated to identify specific information units of the plurality of information units stored in the management frame as taught by Zheng in at least Paragraph 0109 [i.e. a second wireless communication transmitter is configured to receive said safety frame])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to have modified the disclosure of Boisen by incorporating the encapsulation and transmission of information within a management frame between a vehicle and roadside unit as taught by Zheng.
The motivation to do so is that, as acknowledged by Zheng in at least Paragraph 0097, the transmissions and information sharing between the charging station and vehicle may be adjusted in a manner to make said transmissions IEEE 802.11p compliant, which is a specifically designed standard for vehicle-to-vehicle or vehicle-to-infrastructure communication, improving the data exchange between vehicle and charging station.
Regarding Claim 4:
The assembly as claimed in claim 1, in which the first wireless communication transmitter and the second communication transmitter are wireless radio transmitters, the radio communication between the first transmitter and the second transmitter being established periodically.
Boisen discloses in at least Paragraphs 0022, 0025, & 0040 wherein data may be provided between the vehicle and station electronic control units through NFC communication, which is a form of radio communication [i.e. the first wireless communication transmitter and the second communication transmitter are wireless radio transmitters], with transmissions taking place at specified appropriate intervals, such as in 200 or 50 millisecond intervals [i.e. the radio communication between the first transmitter and the second transmitter being established periodically].
Regarding Claim 5:
The assembly as claimed in claim 4, in which the first wireless communication transmitter and the second wireless communication transmitter are wireless radio transmitters and receivers configured to transmit and receive information.
Boisen discloses in at least Paragraphs 0022 & 0038 wherein the station and vehicle may each be equipped with an NFC antenna, which operates over radio frequencies [i.e. a first and second wireless communication transmitter are wireless radio transmitters]. At least Paragraph 0033 of Boisen further discloses wherein the NFC link is bidirectional, enabling both the transmission and receipt of data over the link [i.e. the vehicle and station are wireless radio transmitters and receivers configured to transmit and receive information.
Regarding Claim 7:
The assembly as claimed in claim 1, in which the first communication transmitter is configured to encapsulate the safety information originating from the first operating safety monitor in a safety frame and the second wireless communication transmitter is configured to decapsulate the safety frame in order to extract the safety information.
Boisen does not appear to specifically disclose wherein the safety information is encapsulated into or decapsulated from a safety frame.
However Zheng teaches in at least Paragraph 0097 wherein a roadside unit may write and encapsulate information that an RSU needs to transfer to a vehicle node into a management frame [i.e. the first communication transmitter is configured to encapsulate the safety information originating from the first operating safety monitor in a safety frame], which may be broadcast during a communication process to vehicle nodes as taught in at least Paragraph 0101. Upon receipt by the vehicle node, the management frame is decapsulated to identify specific information units of the plurality of information units stored in the management frame as taught by Zheng in at least Paragraph 0109 [i.e. the second wireless communication transmitter is configured to decapsulate the safety frame in order to extract the safety information].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to have modified the disclosure of Boisen by incorporating the encapsulation/decapsulation and transmission of information within a management frame between a vehicle and roadside unit as taught by Zheng.
The motivation to do so is that, as acknowledged by Zheng in at least Paragraph 0097, the transmissions and information sharing between the charging station and vehicle may be adjusted in a manner to make said transmissions IEEE 802.11p compliant, which is a specifically designed standard for vehicle-to-vehicle or vehicle-to-infrastructure communication, improving the data exchange between vehicle and charging station.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boisen (US 2020/0346554 A1) in view of Zheng (CN 103415082 B) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Oman (US 2015/0015193 A1).
Regarding Claim 2:
The assembly as claimed in claim 1, in which the first wireless communication transmitter is configured to transmit position information of the docking station to the second wireless communication transmitter, the vehicle further comprising a navigation monitor configured to calculate the location of the vehicle in relation to the charging docking station in the working area based on said position information.
Boisen does not appear to specifically disclose wherein the first (station) wireless communication transmitter is configured to transmit position information of the docking station to the second (vehicle) wireless communication transmitter with the vehicle further comprising a navigation monitor configured to calculate the location of the vehicle in relation to the charging docking station in the working area based on said position information.
However Oman teaches in at least Paragraphs 0006, 0016, & 0017 wherein charging stations are equipped with wideband transceivers configured to communicate with corresponding transceivers located at the vehicle, including the transmission of distances between the wireless charging station and vehicle [i.e. transmit position information of the docking station to the second (vehicle) wireless communication transmitter]. At least Paragraphs 0017 & 0033 of Oman further teach wherein the location of the wireless charging station relative to the vehicle may be determined by a controller of the vehicle based on the received distance(s), including through triangulation with a plurality of receivers located on the vehicle [i.e. the vehicle further comprising a navigation monitor configured to calculate the location of the vehicle in relation to the charging docking station in the working area based on said position information].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to have modified the disclosure of Boisen by incorporating the determination of charging station location relative to the vehicle based on distance information transmitted by transmitters at the charging stations as taught by Oman.
The motivation to do so is that, as acknowledged by Oman in at least Paragraph 0033, the determination of location of a wireless charging station relative to a vehicle may be determined in a more reliable manner, improving the positioning of the vehicle relative to the charging station.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boisen (US 2020/0346554 A1) in view of Zheng (CN 103415082 B) and Oman (US 2015/0015193 A1) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Hom (US 2020/0039370 A1).
Regarding Claim 3:
The assembly as claimed in claim 2, comprising a plurality of charging docking stations and a plurality of autonomous vehicles, each autonomous vehicle being configured to receive position information originating from at least three of the charging docking stations of the working area in order to calculate the location of said autonomous vehicle by triangulation.
Boisen does not appear to specifically disclose wherein each autonomous vehicle of a plurality is configured to receive position information originating from at least three of the charging docking stations of the working area in order to calculate the location of said autonomous vehicle by triangulation.
Oman teaches in at least Paragraphs 0006, 0016, & 0017 wherein charging stations are equipped with wideband transceivers configured to communicate with corresponding transceivers located at the vehicle, including the transmission of distances between the wireless charging station and vehicle, with at least Paragraphs 0017 & 0033 of Oman further teaching wherein the location of the wireless charging station relative to the vehicle may be determined by a controller of the vehicle based on the received distance(s), including through triangulation with a plurality of receivers located on the vehicle, however this triangulation does not appear to take place based on distances to multiple charging docking stations as recited by the present claimed invention.
However Hom teaches in at least Paragraph 0022 wherein a plurality of fixed transceivers may be arranged in a charging station on top of chargers [i.e. a plurality of charging stations]. Multiple transceivers may be communicated with at once to triangulate the position of a bus [i.e. vehicle] in the environment as further disclosed in at least Paragraph 0022, including four in an embodiment, as depicted in at least Figure 2B of Hom, below [i.e. receive position information originating from at least three of the charging docking stations of the working area in order to calculate the location of said autonomous vehicle by triangulation].
PNG
media_image2.png
266
684
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to have modified the disclosure of Boisen by incorporating the triangulation of the position of the vehicle based on the triangulation of the vehicle to multiple charging station fixed transceivers as taught by Hom.
The motivation to do so is that, as acknowledged by Hom in at least Paragraphs 0022 & 0023, the position of a vehicle travelling in a charging station area may be accurately tracked, improving the positioning of the vehicle relative to charging stations.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boisen (US 2020/0346554 A1) in view of Zheng (CN 103415082 B) as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Hom (US 2020/0039370 A1).
Regarding Claim 6:
The assembly as claimed in claim 5, in which the second wireless communication transmitter is configured to transmit vehicle status information and location information of the vehicle to the first wireless communication transmitter.
Boisen discloses in at least Paragraphs 0025 & 0033 wherein information acquired from the safety system of a vehicle, including vehicle and fueling operation data, may be transmitted to the station safety system across an NFC link [i.e. the second wireless communication transmitter is configured to transmit vehicle status information and location information of the vehicle to the first wireless communication transmitter].
However Hom teaches in at least Paragraphs 0022 & 0023 wherein a plurality of fixed transceivers [i.e. a second wireless communication transmitter] may receive positioning signal information from a mobile transceiver located on a vehicle [i.e. a second wireless communication transmitter], and compute the position of the vehicle based on such [i.e. vehicle location information is transmitted].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to have modified the disclosure of Boisen by incorporating the transmission of location information by the vehicle as taught by Hom.
The motivation to do so is that, as acknowledged by Hom in at least Paragraphs 0022 & 0023, the position of a vehicle travelling in a charging station area may be accurately tracked, improving the positioning of the vehicle relative to charging stations.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boisen (US 2020/0346554 A1) in view of Zheng (CN 103415082 B) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Li (CN 112046325 A).
Regarding Claim 8:
The assembly as claimed in claim 1, further comprising an emergency stop button connected to the first operating safety monitor.
Boisen does not appear to specifically disclose wherein safety information is generated via a connected emergency stop button.
However Li teaches in at least Paragraphs 0021 & 0054 wherein a charging pile [i.e. charging station] may be equipped with an emergency stop button that, once pressed, stops the charging process by disconnecting electrical contacts, and further transmits a safety protection signal [i.e. an emergency stop button connected to the first operating safety monitor].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to have modified the disclosure of Boisen by incorporating the connection of an emergency stop button to the safety system of a charging station as taught by Li.
The motivation to do so is that, as acknowledged by Lin in at least Paragraph 0054, the charging process may be stopped by the actuation of an emergency stop button and the transmission of the safety protection signal, improving the safety of the charger.
Claim(s) 9 & 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boisen (US 2020/0346554 A1) in view of Zheng (CN 103415082 B) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Roehrl (US 2019/0160950 A1).
Regarding Claim 9:
The assembly as claimed in claim 1, in which the second operating safety monitor is configured to cut the electrical power supply connection between an electric motor and the battery in order to stop the vehicle motor on the basis of operating safety information originating from the charging docking station, or to engage a safety stop function of the vehicle motor on the basis of operating safety information originating from the charging docking station.
Boisen does not appear to specifically disclose wherein the second operating safety monitor is configured to cut the electrical power supply connection between an electric motor and the battery in order to stop the vehicle motor on the basis of operating safety information originating from the charging docking station.
However Roehrl teaches in at least Paragraphs 0020, 0021, & 0037 wherein a charging station may transmit an emergency shutdown signal to a vehicle drive battery module in the event that the charging station is no longer capable of performing a shutdown on its own, with the vehicle disconnecting the motor vehicle drive battery from the rest of the motor vehicle in response to said signal [i.e. the second operating safety monitor is configured to cut the electrical power supply connection between an electric motor and the battery in order to stop the vehicle motor on the basis of operating safety information originating from the charging docking station].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to have modified the disclosure of Boisen by incorporating the disconnection of the vehicle battery responsive to receiving safety information from a vehicle charger as taught by Roehrl.
The motivation to do so is that, as acknowledged by Roehrl in at least Paragraphs 0020 & 0037, the vehicle components, including the battery and motor of the vehicle, may be protected in the event of a fault event in the charger, improving the safety of the charging system.
Regarding Claim 10:
The assembly as claimed in claim 1, further comprising an electricity network suitable for supplying said charging docking station.
Boisen does not appear to specifically disclose wherein the system includes an electricity network suitable for supplying said charging docking station.
However Roehrl teaches in at least Paragraph 0017 wherein a charging station may be supplied power by a public grid [i.e. an electricity network suitable for supplying said charging docking station].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to have modified the disclosure of Boisen by incorporating the supply of power to the vehicle charging station from a public grid as taught by Roehrl.
The motivation to do so is that, as acknowledged by Roehrl in at least Paragraph 0017, and as would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention, the motor vehicle charging coil may be supplied with appropriate power for operating to charge the motor vehicle.
Claim(s) 11 & 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boisen (US 2020/0346554 A1) in view of Zheng (CN 103415082 B) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Moghe (US 2019/0202304 A1) and Roehrl (US 2019/0160950 A1).
Regarding Claim 11:
Boisen discloses: A method for managing the charging of an autonomous vehicle in a charging assembly as claimed in claim 1, comprising the following steps: (Boisen discloses in at least Paragraphs 0021 & 0022 a communication method enabling bidirectional communication between a vehicle and charging station, including communication between the safety systems of each. At least Paragraph 0033 of Boisen further discloses wherein autonomous driving information may be transmitted from the vehicle, rendering the vehicle an autonomous vehicle in an embodiment [i.e. the method is for managing a charging assembly for autonomous vehicles])
However Moghe teaches:
- navigating the mobile autonomous vehicle towards a charging docking station in a working area based on position information transmitted by at least one charging docking station; (However Moghe teaches in at least Paragraphs 0059 & 0098 wherein an autonomous vehicle may autonomously move within a parking area to park at a particular charging spot to be charged [i.e. navigating the mobile autonomous vehicle towards a charging docking station in a working area]. At least Paragraphs 0025, 0050, & 0098 of Moghe further teach wherein the particular configuration of the charging spot(s), including the precise location of each charging coil, are transmitted to the vehicle via a supervisory service [i.e. based on position information transmitted by at least one charging docking station])
- docking with the charging docking station with which the vehicle is associated and charging the rechargeable battery; (However Moghe teaches in at least Paragraphs 0050, 0051, 0104, & 0105 wherein the vehicle may park at a particular charging spot and initiate charging of the electric battery [i.e. docking with the charging docking station with which the vehicle is associated and charging the rechargeable battery])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to have modified the disclosure of Boisen by incorporating the autonomous navigation of a vehicle in the vicinity of a charger, and the docking of the vehicle with said charger as taught by Moghe.
The motivation to do so is that, as acknowledged by Moghe in at least Paragraph 0059, the vehicle may be precisely aligned with a charging coil apparatus, improving the docking of the vehicle with the charging station, and thus improving vehicle charging.
However Roehrl teaches:
- stopping the autonomous vehicle remotely when it receives operating safety information originating from the charging docking station. (However Roehrl teaches in at least Paragraphs 0020, 0021, & 0037 wherein a charging station may transmit an emergency shutdown signal to a vehicle drive battery module in the event that the charging station is no longer capable of performing a shutdown on its own, with the vehicle disconnecting the motor vehicle drive battery from the rest of the motor vehicle in response to said signal [i.e. stopping the autonomous vehicle remotely when it receives operating safety information originating from the charging docking station])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to have modified the disclosure of Boisen by incorporating the disconnection of the vehicle battery responsive to receiving safety information from a vehicle charger as taught by Roehrl.
The motivation to do so is that, as acknowledged by Roehrl in at least Paragraphs 0020 & 0037, the vehicle components, including the battery and motor of the vehicle, may be protected in the event of a fault event in the charger, improving the safety of the charging system.
Regarding Claim 12:
The method as claimed in claim 11, in which the autonomous vehicle is stopped according to the following steps: - generation of operating safety information by the first operating safety monitor; - transmission of operating safety information from the first operating safety monitor to the first communication transmitter; (Boisen discloses in at least Paragraphs 0022 & 0028 wherein the station may include a station safety system [i.e. a first operating safety monitor], configured to receive information from a plurality of sensors reflecting conditions in the charging station, and send information to a station electronic control unit/station bus [i.e. generate and transmit operating safety information])
- transmission of the safety frame from the first communication transmitter to the second communication transmitter; (Boisen discloses in at least Paragraph 0024 wherein a station bus may be used to connect a station safety system [i.e. a first operating safety monitor] to a station electronic control unit, which may communicate with a vehicle electronic control unit wirelessly over an NFC link, via a station NFC transceiver [i.e. a first wireless communication transmitter] and a corresponding vehicle NFC transceiver [i.e. a second wireless communication transmitter as set forth below] to communicate information from the station safety system to the vehicle safety system as disclosed in at least Paragraph 0025 [i.e. a first wireless communication transmitter receives operating safety information transmitted by the first operating safety monitor to transmit to the vehicle])
- transmission of the safety information from the second communication transmitter to the second operating safety monitor; (Boisen discloses in at least Paragraph 0025 wherein the vehicle NFC transceiver [i.e. the second wireless communication transmitter] is configured to receive data from the station safety system, and provide said information to the vehicle safety system [i.e. transmission of the safety information from the second communication transmitter to the second operating safety monitor])
Boisen however appears to be silent regarding:
- encapsulation of the operating safety information by the first communication transmitter in a safety frame;
- decapsulation of the safety frame by the second communication transmitter in order to extract the safety information;
- cutting of the electrical power supply connection between the motor and the battery in order to stop the vehicle motor.
However Zheng teaches wherein information transmitted between a vehicle and infrastructure may be encapsulated into, and decapsulated from, a management frame.
- encapsulation of the operating safety information by the first communication transmitter in a safety frame; (However Zheng teaches in at least Paragraph 0097 wherein a roadside unit may write and encapsulate information that an RSU needs to transfer to a vehicle node into a management frame [i.e. encapsulation of the operating safety information by the first communication transmitter in a safety frame], which may be broadcast during a communication process to vehicle nodes as taught in at least Paragraph 0101 of Zheng)
- decapsulation of the safety frame by the second communication transmitter in order to extract the safety information; (However Zheng teaches in at least Paragraph 0109 wherein upon receipt by the vehicle node, the management frame is decapsulated to identify specific information units of the plurality of information units stored in the management frame [i.e. decapsulation of the safety frame by the second communication transmitter in order to extract the safety information])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to have modified the disclosure of Boisen by incorporating the encapsulation/decapsulation and transmission of information within a management frame between a vehicle and roadside unit as taught by Zheng.
The motivation to do so is that, as acknowledged by Zheng in at least Paragraph 0097, the transmissions and information sharing between the charging station and vehicle may be adjusted in a manner to make said transmissions IEEE 802.11p compliant, which is a specifically designed standard for vehicle-to-vehicle or vehicle-to-infrastructure communication, improving the data exchange between vehicle and charging station.
However Roehrl teaches wherein a vehicle power supply connection between a vehicle battery and motor may be
- cutting of the electrical power supply connection between the motor and the battery in order to stop the vehicle motor. (However Roehrl teaches in at least Paragraphs 0020, 0021, & 0037 wherein a charging station may transmit an emergency shutdown signal to a vehicle drive battery module in the event that the charging station is no longer capable of performing a shutdown on its own, with the vehicle disconnecting the motor vehicle drive battery from the rest of the motor vehicle in response to said signal [i.e. the second operating safety monitor is configured to cut the electrical power supply connection between an electric motor and the battery in order to stop the vehicle motor on the basis of operating safety information originating from the charging docking station])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to have modified the disclosure of Boisen by incorporating the disconnection of the vehicle battery responsive to receiving safety information from a vehicle charger as taught by Roehrl.
The motivation to do so is that, as acknowledged by Roehrl in at least Paragraphs 0020 & 0037, the vehicle components, including the battery and motor of the vehicle, may be protected in the event of a fault event in the charger, improving the safety of the charging system.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boisen (US 2020/0346554 A1) in view of Zheng (CN 103415082 B), Moghe (US 2019/0202304 A1), and Roehrl (US 2019/0160950 A1) as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Li (CN 112046325 A).
Regarding Claim 13:
The method as claimed in claim 11, in which the safety information is generated by an emergency stop button connected to the first operating safety monitor of a charging docking station.
Boisen does not appear to specifically disclose wherein safety information is generated via a connected emergency stop button.
However Li teaches in at least Paragraphs 0021 & 0054 wherein a charging pile [i.e. charging station] may be equipped with an emergency stop button that, once pressed, stops the charging process by disconnecting electrical contacts, and further transmits a safety protection signal [i.e. safety information generated by an emergency stop button].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present claimed invention to have modified the disclosure of Boisen by incorporating the generation of a safety protection signal after an emergency stop button is pressed as taught by Li.
The motivation to do so is that, as acknowledged by Lin in at least Paragraph 0054, the charging process may be stopped by the actuation of an emergency stop button and the transmission of the safety protection signal, improving the safety of the charger.
Conclusion
The following prior art made of record but not relied upon is considered pertinent to the Applicant’s disclosure:
Heuer (US 11,173,802 B2): Heuer recites a method for controlling the charging operation of a vehicle at a charging station, including monitoring and modifying/stopping the charging operation. Communication may be established between the charging device and mobile terminal via an NFC link.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER RYAN CARDIMINO whose telephone number is (571)272-2759. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 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, Ramya Burgess can be reached at (571)272-6011. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER R CARDIMINO/Examiner, Art Unit 3661
/RAMYA P BURGESS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3661