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
Status of the Application
Claims 1-20 have been examined in this application. This communication is the first action on
the merits.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 8/6/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claim 1 is directed towards an method , thus meeting the Step 1 eligibility criterion. Claim 1 does recite the abstract concept of a method of organizing human activity – i.e. commercial interaction / fundamental economic principle, which has been identified as an abstract idea by the MPEP: receiving a first notification indicative of a first electrical coupling of an electric vehicle at a first physical address/ upon receiving the first notification, providing a first plurality of content options / the first plurality of content options are indicative of a first plurality of multimedia content streams to be provided / receiving a second notification of a first selection of the first plurality of content options by a user / storing the first selection.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 1 includes the additional elements of an EV coupled to an EV charger / a first display co-located with the EV charger / a second display / memory. The displays / memory represent generic computing elements. Performing the claimed elements within EV/EV charger coupling environment does no more than apply or link the use of the recited judicial exception to a particular technological environment/field of use.
The additional elements do not, alone or in combination, improve the functioning of the computing device or another technology/technical field, nor do they apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking its use to a particular technological environment. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, because as noted above, the claimed computing elements represent generic computing elements; they are recited at a high level of generality. Performing the claimed elements within EV/EV charger coupling environment does no more than apply or link the use of the recited judicial exception to a particular technological environment/field of use. The additional elements do not, alone or in combination, improve the functioning of the computing device or another technology/technical field, nor do they apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking its use to a particular technological environment. Therefore, Claim 1 does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claim is not patent eligible.
Independent claims 19, 20 are directed to a device and CRM, respectively, for performing the method of claim 1. Claims 19, 20 perform the claimed limitations using only generic components of a networked computer system. Therefore, claims 19, 20 are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more for the reasons given in the discussion of claim 1.
Remaining dependent claims 2-18 further recite and narrow the abstract ideas of independent claim 1. The claims further recite the additional elements of a multimedia client device / bidirectional EV charger configured to provide backup power to the first physical address while the EV is electrically coupled to the EV charger / a streaming server/ providing content by the EV charger during a power failure at the first physical address. The client device / server represent generic computing elements that perform the claimed limitations; they are recited at a high level of generality. The bidirectional EV charger configured to provide backup power to the first physical address while the EV is electrically coupled to the EV charger / providing content by the EV charger during a power failure at the first physical address do no more than apply or link the use of the recited judicial exception to a particular technological environment/field of use. The additional elements do not, alone or in combination with the other additional elements , improve the functioning of the computing device or another technology/technical field, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking its use to a particular technological environment. Therefore, the claims above do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claims are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 3, 4 , 10, 13, 19, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable over Brimacombe (20140028255).
As per Claims 1, 19, 20, Singh discloses a method, Device and CRM comprising:
At least one processor (at least para 28)
receiving a first notification indicative of a first electrical coupling of an electric vehicle (EV) to an EV charger located at a first physical address; (at least: para 17, abstract)
upon receiving the first notification, providing to a first display a first plurality of content options, wherein: the first display is co-located with the EV charger; (the display represents a generic computing element that performs the claimed limitations. At least: para 17, abstract)
the first plurality of content options are indicative of a first plurality of multimedia content streams to be provided to a second display; (the second display represents a generic computing element that performs the claimed limitations . at least : para 17, abstract; the user’s phone is construed as the second display)
receiving a second notification indicative of a first selection of the first plurality of content options by a user of the EV charger; (at least: para 17, abstract)
and storing the first selection in a memory. (the memory represents a generic computing element that performs the claimed limitations. At least: para 28)
As per Claim 2, Brimacombe discloses:
the EV charger comprises the first display; the EV charger is a home-based EV charger; and the first physical address is a residential address. (at least: abstract, para 12-13)
As per Claim 3, Brimacombe discloses:
the second display is associated with a multimedia client device distinct from the first display.(at least para 17, abstract – user’s mobile phone is construed as the second display)
As per Claim 4, Brimacombe discloses:
providing a first multimedia content stream to the second display based on the first selection of the first plurality of content options. (at least: abstract, para 17)
As per Claim 10, Brimacombe discloses:
The first multimedia content stream is provided by the EV charger. (at least: abstract, para 17)
As per Claim 13, Brimacombe discloses:
the first plurality of content options is further indicative of a first plurality of start times for the first plurality of multimedia content streams to be provided to the second display. (Brimacombe discloses providing content options for content streams to be provided to a display, as noted above. It also teaches that “Those of ordinary skill in the art will appreciate that the foregoing description is illustrative of the invention. The disclosure is not intended to be limited to the specific embodiments described above. The details of the materials used, the uses described, and the arrangement and type of mechanical objects of the invention can be altered without materially changing the scope of the instant invention. It is to be understood that the above description has been made in an illustrative fashion, and not a restrictive one. Combinations of the above embodiments, and other embodiments not specifically described herein will be apparent to those of skill in the art. The scope of the various embodiments of the invention includes any other applications in which the extension device is used. Therefore the scope of the inventive concept, including all of it's embodiments and appended claims, along with a full range of equivalents should be considered to be the full inventive concept”, “ The organization of the foregoing examples and description should not be construed to be the only features of the invention, nor should the examples be limiting to the inventive concept. The claims appended to this disclosure reflect subsets of the instant invention. The appended claims, and all claims which may be later added are hereby incorporated into the description of the embodiments of the invention, with each claim standing on its own as a separate preferred embodiment.” – para 29-30, thus teaching that the content is indicative of a plurality of start times for the content streams. That the content indicates the start times for the content streams represents non-functional descriptive material that is entitled to little if any patentable weight per MPEP §2111.05.)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable in view of Brimacombe (20140028255) in further view of Ge (CN 112421739 A).
As per Claims 5 , Brimacombe teaches the first multimedia content stream and providing the content stream to the second display, as noted above; Ge further teaches:
Providing the content is used to determine an offset cost associated with the EV charger. (at least: page 11: “A general-purpose passenger vehicle is located mainly in a house at the time of departure and an office at the time of work, and a house parking space is a garage of thehouse or a parking space near the house. It is a necessary condition for the electric vehicle industry to succeed in providing each electric vehicle with a home parking space charging stand. The electric vehicle alternating-current charging system is also suitable for charging at a parking place of a house, an operation mode is provided for household charging, household electric vehicles are arranged to be charged in turn, the situation that a regional power conversion device or a power grid is broken down to guarantee charging safety is avoided, and meanwhile, a charger can obtain a price discount. Residential power supply configurations typically supply multiple homes for a single regional power conversion device, and existing wiring between the regional power conversion device and the homes can be leveraged to reduce the cost of building an electric vehicle ac charging system. The following is a third embodiment illustrating a dedicated application of the ac charging system for electric vehicles of the present invention to a home.”)
It would have been obvious for someone skilled in the art at the time of the filing of the
invention to modify Brimacombe ‘s existing features, with Ge’s feature above, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have
recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claims 11, 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable in view of Brimacombe (20140028255) in further view of Zou ( CN105329108A) in even further view of Marschner (20070183476 ).
As per Claims 11 , Brimacombe teaches the first physical address, and Zou teaches:
The EV charger is a bidirectional EV charger configured to provide backup power to the physical address while the EV is electrically coupled with the EV charger (at least: abstract)
It would have been obvious for someone skilled in the art at the time of the filing of the
invention to modify Brimacombe ‘s existing features, with Zou’s feature above, to provide Vehicle to Home technology – Zou, abstract. Furthermore, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Brimacombe teaches an EV charger that provides content, at a physical address, as noted above, and Marschner teaches:
The content stream is provided … during a power failure at the first physical address. (at least: para 8)
It would have been obvious for someone skilled in the art at the time of the filing of the
invention to modify Brimacombe ‘s existing features, combined with Zou’s existing feature, with Marschner’s feature above, to provide alerts when there is a possibility of a power failure – Marschner, para 8. Furthermore, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As per Claims 12 , Brimacombe in view of Zou in further view of Marschner teach:
the EV charger comprises a streaming server; and the first multimedia content stream is pre-stored on the streaming server. (Brimacombe, at least para 28)
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable in view of Brimacombe (20140028255) in further view of Suzuki (20220345765).
As per Claims 14 , Brimacombe teaches a first/second display, as noted above, and Suzuki teaches:
upon receiving the …notification, providing to the … display a first plurality of start times for the first plurality of multimedia content streams to be provided to the … display; receiving a third notification indicative of a second selection of the first plurality of start times; and storing the second selection in the memory. (at least: para 37, 64, 54, 71)
It would have been obvious for someone skilled in the art at the time of the filing of the
invention to modify Brimacombe ‘s existing features, with Suzuki’s feature above, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claims 15, 16, 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable in view of Brimacombe (20140028255) in further view of KR20080043764A (Hereinafter “KR”).
As per Claim 15 , Brimacombe teaches a first plurality of content options, and KR further teaches:
The first plurality of content options is based on a profile; the programmatic method further comprises updating the profile based on the first selection. (at least: page1- “ The method of claim 1, Creating the content context profile; Initializing a state of knowledge associated with the content context profile; Re-profiling the content context profile; And After the re-profiling, updating the state of knowledge associated with the content context profile. The method of claim 1, Creating the advertisement profile; Initializing a state of knowledge associated with the advertisement profile; Re-profileing the advertisement profile; And After the re-profiling, updating the status of knowledge associated with the advertisement profile. The method of claim 1, Estimating a user's response to the at least one preferred advertisement; And Iii) re-evaluation of the user profile; Ii) a new update of the state of knowledge associated with the user profile, the state of knowledge associated with the content context profile, and “, page 2- “user; And Identifying a subset of user non-selected advertisements comprising a plurality of advertisements not selected by the user.The method of claim 5, wherein Reconditioning the user profile, a state of knowledge associated with the user profile, a state of knowledge associated with the content context profile and a new update of the state of knowledge associated with the advertisement profile, and the at least one preferred advertisement Using the user's response to perform at least one of the evaluating steps of:Iii) conversations with users and preferred ads;Ii) activity history of the user;Iii) at leastone attribute of the content context profile;Iii) at least one attribute of the advertising profile; AndIii) estimating a score for at least one preferred advertisement based on at least one user profile associated with the user.The method of claim 5, wherein Conditionally select the re-evaluation of the user profile, a state of knowledge associated with the user profile, a state of knowledge associated with the content context profile and a new update of the state of knowledge associated with the advertisement profile, and the at least one preferred advertisement Using the user's response to perform at least one of the evaluations of the steps of:Assigning an attribute weight to at least one attribute associated withthe at least one preferred advertisement;Compiling an activity history of a user associated with at least one preferred advertisement; AndAdjusting at least one attribute weightbased on a user's activity history.The method of claim 2,Updating the status of knowledge associated with the user profile includes:Iii) a history associated with a plurality of advertisements that are user selected;Ii) a history associated with a plurality of advertisements that are not user-selected;Iii) a plurality of user profiles associated with a pluralityof users assigned to the plurality of cohorts;Iii) a plurality of advertisement profiles; AndIii) compiling a cumulative history based on at least one of the plurality of content context profiles.The method of claim 2,Updating the status of knowledge associated with the user profile includes:Iii) the specified update frequency;”)
It would have been obvious for someone skilled in the art at the time of the filing of the
invention to modify Brimacombe ‘s existing features, with KR’s feature above, to provide targeted content based on user profiles – KR, abstract. Furthermore, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As per Claim 16 , Brimacombe in view of KR teach:
The profile includes user information provided by the user. (KR, at least: page 3: “Embodiments disclosed herein provide a system comprising a computer system that substantially overcomes such deficiencies and implements an advertisement selection process that selects preferred advertisements for a user. The advertisement selection process includes three components. At the core of the system is a user profiler that encapsulates the user's preferences in ad audience. Input to the user profiler includes, but is not limited to, the user's most recent interests. These may include recent searches, clicks (ie, user selections), page views, purchases, previous ad clicks and impressions, and related personal profiles. The relevant personal profile may include the user's preferences and tastes in music, movies, TV, games, searches (web searches such as shopping, videos, images, etc.) and retail. Registration data can include demographic information such as user age and gender, socioeconomic information such as the number of children in the household and household income, and geographic information such as current location or ZIP code. It may include. The system automatically updates the ad selection process incorporating the user's advertisement related preferences”)
As per Claim 17 , Brimacombe in view of KR teach:
The user information comprises user survey information. (KR, at least: page 9 – recently reviewed product)
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable in view of Brimacombe (20140028255) in further view of KR20080043764A (Hereinafter “KR”) in even further view of Follmer (20220284506).
As per Claim 18 , Brimacombe in view of KR teach the user information; Follmer further teaches:
The user information includes user purchasing information; the user purchasing information includes user home ownership information; the user home ownership information includes the first physical address. (at least: para 37)
It would have been obvious for someone skilled in the art at the time of the filing of the
invention to modify Brimacombe ‘s existing features, combined with KR’s existing feature, with Follmer’s feature above, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
The prior art of record does not teach neither singly nor in combination the limitations of claims 6, 7, 8, 9. Brimacombe (20140028255) discloses the combination of claimed elements of pending claims 1, 4, as noted above; however, it lacks the combination of claimed elements of pending claims 6, 7, 8, 9. When taken as a whole, the claims are not rendered obvious as the available prior art does not suggest or otherwise render obvious the noted features nor does the available prior art suggest or otherwise render obvious further modification of the evidence at hand. Such modifications would require substantial reconstruction relying solely on improper hindsight bias, and thus would not be obvious.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Prosser (20120116575) teaches an EV charger and POS device, comprising: an electric vehicle charger adapted to provide electrical power to a vehicle; a network device adapted to communicate with a wireless network; and a point of sale device coupled to the electric vehicle charger and the network device, the point of sale device adapted to facilitate consumer purchases of the electrical power and items other than the electrical power, the point of sale device comprising: a user interface comprising a touch screen display, a credit card reader, a bar code reader, and a magnetic card reader, and a printer; a processor; and an application for execution on the processor to implement a method comprising: receiving a request from a consumer via the user interface; processing the request; and outputting a status of the request via the user interface. However, it lacks the combination of claimed elements of the pending independent claims.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Alexandru Cirnu whose telephone number is (571) 272-7775. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM. 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, Ilana Spar can be reached on (571) 270-7537. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/Alexandru Cirnu/
Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3622
9/18/2026
Prosecution Insights