DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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.
Claim(s) 1-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
A claim that recites an abstract idea, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon is directed to a judicial exception. Abstract ideas include the following groupings of subject matter, when recited as such in a claim limitation: (a) Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations; (b) Certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions); and (c) Mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See MPEP 2106.
Even when a judicial element is recited in the claim, an additional claim element(s) that integrates the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception renders the claim eligible under §101. A claim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception. The following examples are indicative that an additional element or combination of elements may integrate the judicial exception into a practical application:
the additional element(s) reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field;
the additional element(s) that applies or uses a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition;
the additional element(s) implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim;
the additional element(s) effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and
the additional element(s) applies or uses 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 more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
Examples in which the judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application include:
the additional element(s) merely recites the words ‘‘apply it’’ (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea;
the additional element(s) adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception; and
the additional element does no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
See MPEP 2106.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claims 1, 16, 17 are directed to a method, system, and computer readable storage medium. Therefore, the claims are within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the MPEP 2106, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claim(s) 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (bolded below) and will be used as a representative claims for the remainder of the 101 rejection.
Claim 1 recites:
at a server system with one or more processors and memory:
receiving, from a user, a request to search for one or more commercial establishments;
determining that the user satisfies one or more electric vehicle charging criteria; and
in response to the request to search and in accordance with the determination that the user satisfies the one or more electric vehicle charging criteria, providing indications for a subset, less than all, of the one or more commercial establishments, wherein each commercial establishment in the subset is within a predefined proximity of a respective electric vehicle charging station (EVCS).
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, the limitation(s) in the context of this claim encompasses a person determining that their electric vehicle needs charging and identifying a sufficient charging stations near a city, business, or restaurants.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the MPEP 2106, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. As noted in the MPEP 2106, 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 limitation” while the bolded portions continue to represent the abstract idea):
Claim 1 recites:
at a server system with one or more processors and memory:
receiving, from a user, a request to search for one or more commercial establishments;
determining that the user satisfies one or more electric vehicle charging criteria; and
in response to the request to search and in accordance with the determination that the user satisfies the one or more electric vehicle charging criteria, providing indications for a subset, less than all, of the one or more commercial establishments, wherein each commercial establishment in the subset is within a predefined proximity of a respective electric vehicle charging station (EVCS).
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, the examiner submits that these limitations are additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components and/or insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use a computer to perform the process. The additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. 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. The additional limitation steps are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering input data, transmitting signals, outputting results), and amounts to mere data gathering and displaying, and storing and transmitting do not add a meaningful limitation to the process (MPEP 2106.05(g) v. Consulting and updating an activity log, Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 715, 112 USPQ2d at 1754), which are forms of insignificant extra-solution activities. 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 drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP 2106.05). The additional limitations merely describe how to generally apply the otherwise mental judgements in a generic or general purpose vehicle environment. The additional limitations are recited at a high level of generality and merely automates the steps. Accordingly additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract 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 MPEP 2106, representative independent claim 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 elements amount to nothing more than applying the exception using generic computer components. Generally applying an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
Further, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The additional limitations do not provide any indication that the additional elements are anything other than a conventional computer within a vehicle. Also, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, INC., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), and Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); and OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93 indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network, receiving or transmitting data over a network, and storing and retrieving information in memory are a well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). Further, the Federal Circuit in Trading Techs. Int’l v. IBGLLC, 921 F.3d1084,1093(Fed. Cir.2019), and Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co., 850 F.3d1315, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2017), for example, indicated that the mere displaying of data is a well understood, routine, and conventional function.
The claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim(s) is/are not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-15 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/or additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and merely automates the steps. The additional limitations are recited at a high level of generality and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity; the additional limitations are well-understood, routine, and conventional activity because the specification does not provide any indication that the additional elements are anything other than a conventional computer components. The claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Further, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, INC., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner. Furthermore, the Federal Circuit in Trading Techs. Int’l v. IBGLLC, 921 F.3d1084,1093(Fed. Cir.2019), and Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co., 850 F.3d1315, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2017), for example, indicated that the mere displaying of data is a well understood, routine, and conventional function. Moreover, mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, dependent claims 2-15 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of the independent claim.
Therefore, claim(s) 1-17 is/are ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claim under broadest reasonable interpretation are directed to a program only, absent contrary disclosure in the specification.
MPEP 2106.03 I recites at least “Non-limiting examples of claims that are not directed to any of the statutory categories include:
Products that do not have a physical or tangible form, such as information (often referred to as "data per se") or a computer program per se (often referred to as "software per se") when claimed as a product without any structural recitations;
Transitory forms of signal transmission (often referred to as "signals per se"), such as a propagating electrical or electromagnetic signal or carrier wave; and
Subject matter that the statute expressly prohibits from being patented, such as humans per se, which are excluded under The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA ), Public Law 112-29, sec. 33, 125 Stat. 284 (September 16, 2011).
In this case, a storage medium is not interpreted to fall within at least one of the four statutory categories. MPEP 2106 recites “First, the claimed invention must be to one of the four statutory categories. 35 U.S.C. 101 defines the four categories of invention that Congress deemed to be the appropriate subject matter of a patent: processes, machines, manufactures and compositions of matter. The latter three categories define "things" or "products" while the first category defines "actions" (i.e., inventions that consist of a series of steps or acts to be performed).” Further, MPEP 2106 recites “Claim interpretation affects the evaluation of both criteria for eligibility. For example, in Mentor Graphics v. EVE-USA, Inc., 851 F.3d 1275, 112 USPQ2d 1120 (Fed. Cir. 2017), claim interpretation was crucial to the court’s determination that claims to a "machine-readable medium" were not to a statutory category. In Mentor Graphics, the court interpreted the claims in light of the specification, which expressly defined the medium as encompassing "any data storage device" including random-access memory and carrier waves. Although random-access memory and magnetic tape are statutory media, carrier waves are not because they are signals similar to the transitory, propagating signals held to be non-statutory in Nuijten. 851 F.3d at 1294, 112 USPQ2d at 1133 (citing In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 84 USPQ2d 1495 (Fed. Cir. 2007)). Accordingly, because the BRI of the claims covered both subject matter that falls within a statutory category (the random-access memory), as well as subject matter that does not (the carrier waves), the claims as a whole were not to a statutory category and thus failed the first criterion for eligibility.”
Claim 17 reciting a computer-readable storage medium comprising one or more programs, under broadest reasonable interpretation, is interpretated as a computer program/software per se and as including transitory forms of signal transmission such as a propagating electrical or electromagnetic signal or carrier wave. Further, a computer program stored on a machine-readable data carrier and/or download product does not exclude transitory forms of signal transmission. Applicant’s specification recites at least [0007]: a computer program product (e.g., a non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing instructions) and [0029]: The memory 320 includes high-speed random-access memory, such as DRAM, SRAM, DDR RAM, or other random-access solid-state memory devices; and may include non- volatile memory, such as one or more magnetic disk storage devices, optical disk storage devices, flash memory devices, or other non-volatile solid-state storage devices. In some implementations, the memory 320 includes one or more storage devices remotely located from the processors 302. The memory 320, or alternatively the non-volatile memory devices within the memory 320, includes a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium. For purposes of example only and provided support in Applicant’s specification for at least claim 12, amending “A computer-readable storage medium comprising one or more programs….” to “A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprising one or more programs” could overcome the present 35 USC 101 rejection directed to non-statutory subject matter to fall within at least one of the four statutory categories.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “in response to the request to search and in accordance with the determination that the user satisfies the one or more electric vehicle charging criteria, providing indications for a subset, less than all, of the one or more commercial establishments”. However, the metes and bounds of the limitation are unclear because limitation appears to include that the subset may include less than all of one commercial establishment. Claims 16 and 17 recite similar limitations. Dependent claims are rejected as being dependent upon independent claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4, 8-10, 12-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20200333148 (“Qiu”) in view of US 20220187091 (“Suzuki”).
As per claim(s) 1, 16, 17, Qiu discloses a method, comprising:
at a server system with one or more processors and memory (see at least [0019]: server):
receiving, from a user, a request to search for one or more establishments (see at least [0024]: routes may be based on a destination address as input by a user via the HMI controls 136…user may be prompted to select which type of energy to include, such as to only use battery power to determine the charge points or only use fuel energy, [0025]: route 200 may include a start location 202 and an end location 204. The end location 204 may be received from the user via the HMI controls 136, [0047]: destination may be received from user input at the HMI controls 136 via the display 138, or other mechanisms of receiving destination locations);
determining that the user satisfies one or more electric vehicle charging criteria (see at least [0024]: routes may be based on a destination address as input by a user via the HMI controls 136…user may be prompted to select which type of energy to include, such as to only use battery power to determine the charge points or only use fuel energy, [0026]: Depending on the current battery SOC and fuel level indicating a distance to empty (DTE) of the vehicle, the vehicle 102 may not be able to travel the entire route without needing to recharge or refuel. If this is the case, the long-range navigation system 172 may determine certain charge points 210 where the vehicle 102 may stop along the route 200 to recharge, at least in part, the battery 170…, Applicant’s specification [0048]: the mobile application determines if the user satisfies the one or more EV charging criteria using profile information (e.g., previously stored by the mobile application) of the user, and/or using real-time data collected from the computer system that is executing the mobile application. In some embodiments, the mobile application determines one or more of. if the user owns an EV, if the user is currently located in an EV, if the user's EV has less than a threshold amount of charge, if the request is received from an EV, and/or whether (if received from an EV), the EV from which the request is received has less than a threshold amount of charge.),
wherein each establishment in the subset is within a predefined proximity of a respective electric vehicle charging station (EVCS) (see at least [0026]: Depending on the current battery SOC and fuel level indicating a distance to empty (DTE) of the vehicle, the vehicle 102 may not be able to travel the entire route without needing to recharge or refuel. If this is the case, the long-range navigation system 172 may determine certain charge points 210 where the vehicle 102 may stop along the route 200 to recharge, at least in part, the battery 17, [0027]: charging stations 212 may be located within a maximum proximity (either predefined distance and/or time) to the charge point 210. In many instances, the charging stations 212 may be located at fuel stations at highway exits, etc).
Qiu does not explicitly disclose commercial establishments; in response to the request to search and in accordance with the determination that the user satisfies the one or more electric vehicle charging criteria, providing indications for a subset, less than all, of the one or more commercial establishments, wherein each commercial establishment in the subset is within a predefined proximity of a respective electric vehicle charging station (EVCS).
However, Suzuki teaches commercial establishments (see at least [0114]: candidate destinations and providable services);
in response to the request to search and in accordance with the determination that the user satisfies the one or more electric vehicle charging criteria, providing indications for a subset, less than all, of the one or more commercial establishments (see at least [0048]: user U activates the application and performs communication between the user terminal 90 and the information provision system 1 to perform destination search, make a charging reservation in a case where the destination is a charging station, perform searching of a food and beverage delivery service that can be provided at the destination, make a request for food and beverage delivery to the destination, and the like. The information provision system 1 issues a user identification (ID) to each user of the application, [0114]: In the list 126 of candidate destinations and providable services, a name 126a of the charging station, which is a candidate destination, a distance 126b to the candidate destination, a predicted arrival time 126c to the candidate destination, a name 126d of the store that provides a food and beverage delivery service to the candidate destination, a genre 126e of a deliverable food and beverage, a menu 126f of food and beverage, a delivery time 126g to the candidate destination, and a delivery time variation time 126h are displayed),
wherein each commercial establishment in the subset is within a predefined proximity of a respective electric vehicle charging station (EVCS) (see at least [0080]: (3A-1) The charging station B is in the delivery area, [0114]: In the list 126 of candidate destinations and providable services, a name 126a of the charging station, which is a candidate destination, a distance 126b to the candidate destination).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the invention as disclosed by Qiu by incorporating the teachings of Suzuki with a reasonable expectation of success in order to provide user convenience and support effective use of waiting time at a destination.
As per claim(s) 2, Qiu discloses receiving, from the user, selection of a first establishment of one or more establishments (see at least [0024]: routes may be based on a destination address as input by a user via the HMI controls 136); and
in response to the selection, providing navigation instructions to the first establishment (see at least [0021]: display 138 may also be configured to display route information including a destination location, charge points, etc, [0024]: routes may be based on a destination address as input by a user via the HMI controls 136).
Qiu does not explicitly disclose the first commercial establishment; receiving, from the user, selection of a first commercial establishment of the subset of the one or more commercial establishments.
However, Suzuki teaches the first commercial establishment; receiving, from the user, selection of a first commercial establishment of the subset of the one or more commercial establishments (see at least [0061]: when any service is selected from among the providable services and an order is placed, the selection record notification unit 20 transmits selection record information indicating the service has been selected and the order content to the terminal device of the store that provides the selected service, [0082]: required travel time of the delivery route (time required to transfer the food and beverage) in consideration of the traffic information of the delivery route acquired from the traffic information server 600, and the like, [0090]: user U visually recognizes the delivery service selection screen 120 and selects a desired store by touch operation. For example, when the user U selects the store A having the store name 121a by touch operation, the screen is switched to an order acceptance screen of the store A, and the user U can order desired food and beverage).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the invention as disclosed by Qiu by incorporating the teachings of Suzuki with a reasonable expectation of success in order to provide user convenience and support effective use of waiting time at a destination.
As per claim(s) 4, Qiu does not explicitly disclose wherein the request to search for the one or more commercial establishments comprises a request to search for the one or more commercial establishments within a predefined area.
However, Suzuki discloses wherein the request to search for the one or more commercial establishments comprises a request to search for the one or more commercial establishments within a predefined area (see at least [0079]: providable service extraction unit 12 extracts a food and drink delivery service satisfying all of conditions (3A-1) to (3A-3) described below as a providable service with reference to the provision service DB 201, [0080]: (3A-1) The charging station B is in the delivery area, [0081]: (3A-2) Delivery to the charging station B is possible within a predetermined time zone before and after the predicted arrival time (for example, a time zone from five minutes before the predicted arrival time to five minutes after the predicted arrival time)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the invention as disclosed by Qiu by incorporating the teachings of Suzuki with a reasonable expectation of success in order to provide user convenience and support effective use of waiting time at a destination.
As per claim(s) 8, Qiu discloses wherein the request to search comprises an audio input (see at least [0025]: end location 204 may, additionally or alternatively, be received from a mobile device associated with the user, a voice command, etc).
As per claim(s) 9, Qiu discloses in response to the request to search, prompting the user to confirm whether the user would like to find an EVCS within the predefined proximity of the respective establishment (see at least [0024]: determine whether the current vehicle energy is sufficient to complete the route… user may be prompted to select which type of energy to include, such as to only use battery power to determine the charge points or only use fuel energy) but does not explicitly disclose commercial establishment.
However, Suzuki discloses commercial establishment (see at least [0079]: providable service extraction unit 12 extracts a food and drink delivery service satisfying all of conditions (3A-1) to (3A-3) described below as a providable service with reference to the provision service DB 201, [0080]: (3A-1) The charging station B is in the delivery area, [0081]: (3A-2) Delivery to the charging station B is possible within a predetermined time zone before and after the predicted arrival time (for example, a time zone from five minutes before the predicted arrival time to five minutes after the predicted arrival time)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the invention as disclosed by Qiu by incorporating the teachings of Suzuki with a reasonable expectation of success in order to provide user convenience and support effective use of waiting time at a destination.
As per claim(s) 10, Qiu wherein one or more establishments is provided to the user automatically without additional user input (see at least [0021]: display 138 may also be configured to display route information including a destination location, charge points, etc, [0024]: routes may be based on a destination address as input by a user via the HMI controls 136…processor 106 may include or execute instructions from the navigation system 172, [0026]-[0028]: long-range navigation system 172 may determine certain charge points 210 where the vehicle 102 may stop along the route 200 to recharge, at least in part, the battery 170) but does not explicitly disclose wherein the subset of the one or more commercial establishments is provided to the user automatically without additional user input.
However, Suzuki teaches wherein the subset of the one or more commercial establishments is provided to the user automatically without additional user input (see at least [0048]: user U activates the application and performs communication between the user terminal 90 and the information provision system 1 to perform destination search, make a charging reservation in a case where the destination is a charging station, perform searching of a food and beverage delivery service that can be provided at the destination, make a request for food and beverage delivery to the destination, and the like. The information provision system 1 issues a user identification (ID) to each user of the application, [0080]: (3A-1) The charging station B is in the delivery area, [0114]: In the list 126 of candidate destinations and providable services, a name 126a of the charging station, which is a candidate destination, a distance 126b to the candidate destination, a predicted arrival time 126c to the candidate destination, a name 126d of the store that provides a food and beverage delivery service to the candidate destination, a genre 126e of a deliverable food and beverage, a menu 126f of food and beverage, a delivery time 126g to the candidate destination, and a delivery time variation time 126h are displayed),
wherein each commercial establishment in the subset is within a predefined proximity of a respective electric vehicle charging station (EVCS) (see at least [0080]: (3A-1) The charging station B is in the delivery area, [0114]: In the list 126 of candidate destinations and providable services, a name 126a of the charging station, which is a candidate destination, a distance 126b to the candidate destination).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the invention as disclosed by Qiu by incorporating the teachings of Suzuki with a reasonable expectation of success in order to provide user convenience and support effective use of waiting time at a destination.
As per claim(s) 12, Qiu discloses wherein the one or more electric vehicle charging criteria include a criteria that is met when the user is currently in an EV (see at least [0049]: processor 106 may calculate the required energy needed for the trip. This may take into consideration the power needed to drive along the route 200 and may take into consideration a driver's driving style, expected delays due to traffic or weather, topographical and incline data along the route, predicted cabin climate, etc.).
As per claim(s) 13, Qiu discloses wherein the one or more electric vehicle charging criteria include a criterion that is met when the request to search for one or more commercial establishments is received from a computer system of an EV (see at least [0021]: computing platform 104 may also receive input from human-machine interface (HMI) controls 136 configured to provide for occupant interaction with the vehicle 102).
As per claim(s) 14, Qiu discloses wherein the one or more electric vehicle charging criteria include a criterion that is met when the EV has less than a threshold amount of charge (see at least [0024]: determine whether the current vehicle energy is sufficient to complete the route… user may be prompted to select which type of energy to include, such as to only use battery power to determine the charge points or only use fuel energy).
As per claim(s) 15, Qiu discloses a map view (see at least [0025]: FIG. 2 illustrates an example route 200. The route 200 may include a start location 202 and an end location 204… The map data may provide the possible roads, stops, locations of charging stations, etc., to the navigation system 172. The processor 106 may generate the route based on the start location 202, end location 204, and map data.), but does not explicitly disclose wherein providing indications for the subset of the one or more commercial establishments comprises providing a view with indicators for each commercial establishment in the subset.
However, Suzuki teaches wherein providing indications for the subset of the one or more commercial establishments comprises providing a view with indicators for each commercial establishment in the subset (see at least [0088]: Referring to FIG. 6, the delivery service selection screen 120 displays a charging reservation button 122 for requesting reservation at the charging station B and a providable service list 121, [0113]: user terminal 90 transitions the processing to step S43. In step S43, the user terminal 90 displays a destination selection screen 125 illustrated in FIG. 8 on the touch panel 91. Referring to FIG. 8, the destination selection screen 125 displays a list 126 of candidate destinations and providable services).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the invention as disclosed by Qiu by incorporating the teachings of Suzuki with a reasonable expectation of success in order to provide user convenience and support effective use of waiting time at a destination.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qiu in view of Suzuki, and further in view of US 20240086782 (“Ando”) and US 20230159015 (“Lee”).
As per claim(s) 3, Qiu discloses for each commercial establishment of the one or more establishments, providing an indication of a type of station that is within the predefined proximity of the respective establishment (see at least [0024]: user may be prompted to select which type of energy to include, such as to only use battery power to determine the charge points or only use fuel energy) but does not explicitly disclose for each commercial establishment in the subset of the one or more commercial establishments, providing an indication of a type of EVCS that is within the predefined proximity of the respective commercial establishment.
However, Ando teaches for each commercial establishment in the subset of the one or more commercial establishments, providing an indication of availability of EVCS that is within the predefined proximity of the respective commercial establishment (see at least [0041]: there are stores with available charging facilities” on the display 24. Since stores A to C are commercial facilities extracted by the server 10, charging facilities located near the current location t or the travel route of the vehicle 20 are displayed, [0066]: when the user desires to purchase food and beverages, pick up medicine, etc., while in the vehicle, the user operates the navigation device 21 and/or the information presentation terminal 30 to select a category, such as fast food, pharmacy, or the like, and searches for a vehicle service/commercial facility 40 that is close to the current location of the vehicle or the travel route, Applicant’s specification [0076]: server system provides (728) an indication of a type of EVCS that is within the predefined proximity of the respective commercial establishment. For example, the indication includes an indicator of whether the charging station is level 1, level 2, DC fast chargers, etc. and/or an identifier of a provider (e.g., brand) of the charging station. In some embodiments, the method further comprises providing an indication of availability of the EVCS (e.g., a number of available EVCSs at each commercial establishment, as described with reference to FIG. 6B)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the invention as disclosed by Qiu by incorporating the teachings of Ando with a reasonable expectation of success in order improved user convenience and improved charging with available charging facilities.
However, Lee teaches a type of EVCS (see at least [0046]: information on the fast charging stations that satisfy the environmental conditions and a remaining distance to each of the fast charging stations, an expected charging cost and expected charging time at each of the corresponding fast charging stations may be displayed on the route information from a point of departure to the destination).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the invention as disclosed by Qiu by incorporating the teachings of Lee with a reasonable expectation of success in order for improved driver convenience.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qiu in view of Suzuki, and further in view of Ando.
As per claim(s) 5, Qiu does not explicitly disclose wherein the predefined area is within a proximity of a current location of the user.
However, Ando teaches wherein the predefined area is within a proximity of a current location of the user (see at least [0066]: when the user desires to purchase food and beverages, pick up medicine, etc., while in the vehicle, the user operates the navigation device 21 and/or the information presentation terminal 30 to select a category, such as fast food, pharmacy, or the like, and searches for a vehicle service/commercial facility 40 that is close to the current location of the vehicle or the travel route).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the invention as disclosed by Qiu by incorporating the teachings of Ando with a reasonable expectation of success in order to improve user convenience.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qiu in view of Suzuki, and further in view of US 20230050118 (“Papp”).
As per claim(s) 6, Qiu does not explicitly disclose wherein the predefined area is within a distance of range of an electric vehicle.
However, Papp teaches wherein the predefined area is within a distance of range of an electric vehicle (see at least [0018]: program 104 communicates with computer 102 of vehicle 100 to gather the following information: (i) amount of vehicle charge remaining or vehicle range remaining (e.g., 100 miles), (ii) type of charge port on vehicle, and (iii) current position of vehicle 100, [0019]: program 104 recursively searches for relevant points of interest 500 (i.e., places of business that sell tacos, e.g., Taco Bell) that match the selected AOI search within a pre-determined POI range (e.g., 10,000 meters) from the current location of vehicle 100, [0025]: program 104 compares the available driving range of vehicle 100 mentioned at step 308 with the location of the stations 600 for each POI 500…program 104 compares the available driving range of vehicle 100 mentioned at step 308 with the location of the stations 600 for each POI 500, claim 1: computer-implemented method for directing a driver of an electric vehicle to a point of interest and a charging station in close proximity to the point of interest, said method comprising the steps of: (a) receiving from a user a requested activity of interest; (b) identifying one or more points of interest matching the requested activity of interest and that are within a pre-determined point of interest range from the electric vehicle; (c) identifying charging stations within a pre-determined station distance from each of the identified points of interest; and (d) presenting to the user the identified points of interest having an identified charging station within the pre-determined station distance).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the invention as disclosed by Qiu by incorporating the teachings of Papp with a reasonable expectation of success in order to set the point of interest (POI) range as a function of the driving range of the vehicle and to enable the driver to conveniently visit the POI (based upon the inputted AOI) while the vehicle is charging at the charging station that is within close proximity to the POI.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qiu in view of Suzuki, and further in view of US 20220089056 (“Rajmohan”).
As per claim(s) 7, Qiu does not explicitly disclose wherein the predefined area is defined along a route to a destination distinct from the one or more commercial establishments.
However, Rajmohan teaches wherein the predefined area is defined along a route to a destination distinct from the one or more commercial establishments (see at least [0012]: identify an optimal charging station such that the user's vehicle is charged within a certain radius of the user while the user is eating at a restaurant along the route to the user's final destination).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the invention as disclosed by Qiu by incorporating the teachings of Rajmohan with a reasonable expectation of success in order for user convenience to eat at a restaurant along a route to the user’s final destination and optimal charging.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qiu in view of Suzuki, and further in view of US 20220297550 (“Joao”).
As per claim(s) 11, Qiu discloses a driver of the EV (see at least [0049]: driver's driving style) but does not explicitly disclose wherein the one or more electric vehicle charging criteria include a criterion that is met when the user owns an EV.
However, Joao teaches wherein the one or more electric vehicle charging criteria include a criterion that is met when the user owns an EV (see at least [0402]: owner or operator of the electric vehicle or the hybrid vehicle, or other authorized individual, can transmit the request, for a battery recharge service and/or a fuel cell fuel delivery or replenishment service, from a user communication device 20 to the central processing computer 11 component of the central processing computer/distributed ledger/Blockchain technology system 10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the invention as disclosed by Qiu by incorporating the teachings of Joao with a reasonable expectation of success in order for an authorized individual to transmit a request regarding the electric vehicle.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20220228877 (“Feldman”) (see at least [0081]: After determining and ordering routes, the charging station authorization system may send, to a user device 302, the list of ordered routes. The user device 302 may render the routes and may provide route selection options to the user. The charging station authorization system may include additional information, including consequences of selecting a route. For example, if a user has a flat-rate subscription, the user device 302 may render information describing which routes are within the subscription, and which routes may require an extra charge due to being outside or partially outside of the subscription. In the embodiment shown, route r1 is within a subscription, route r2 is partially within a subscription and route r3 is outside of a subscription, [0082]: a charging station authorization system may include a routing component that operates on a user device and a CPO platform authorization request component on an eMSP service computer. In other embodiments, the charging station authorization system may be contained in an application executing on a user mobile device).
US 20200134742 (“Turner”) (see at least [0038]: Once the EVSE back office receives these data from the EV back office, it will use the EVSE user database of registered accounts (process block 366) to attempt to verify whether the driver is authorized to charge at this EVSE (process block 362). If the EVSE back office determines that the driver is authorized (process block 370) it will send the authorization (request to start charging) to the EVSE and the EV back office (process block 374). Once the EVSE receives the authorization, it will charge the EV based on the user preferences and the policies of the EVSE).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANGELINA M SHUDY whose telephone number is (571)272-6757. The examiner can normally be reached M - F 10am - 6pm.
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, Fadey Jabr can be reached at 571-272-1516. 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.
Angelina Shudy
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3668
/Angelina M Shudy/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3668