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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on March 6, 2026 has been entered.
Priority
Application 18/914,244 was filed on October 13, 2024 and claims the benefit of United States Provisional Application No. 63/590,121, filed on October 13, 2023.
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-3, 6, 10-13, 15, 17, 18, 20-23, and 25 are currently pending. Claims 1, 6, 11-13, 21, and 22 were amended in the reply filed March 6, 2026. Claim 24 was cancelled.
Response to Arguments
112(a)/(b):
Applicant has cancelled claim 24 rendering the rejection of that claim moot. Applicant's amendments overcome the rejection made under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) and 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) to the remaining claims and it is withdrawn.
101:
Applicant's arguments filed with respect to the rejection made under 35 U.S.C. § 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the amended claims 1 and 13 recite “more than just an abstract idea without significantly more” and integrate any abstract idea into a practical application (Remarks p. 11). Examiner respectfully disagrees for the reasons in the 101 rejection below.
Regarding claim 1, Examiner notes that accessing an image to determine a receptacle type can be practically performed in the human mind and that capturing an image with a generic camera is neither a practical application (see MPEP 2106.04(d)(I)), nor does it provide “significantly more” (see MPEP 2106.05(1)(A)).
Regarding the user preferences and predictions being based on a camera at the provider charging station, as recited in claims 1 and 13, Examiner notes that the availability or presence of a camera at a charging station is data that is used to find a matching charging station. As such, it is part of the abstract idea and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide “significantly more” (see MPEP 2106.04 (II)(A)(2) – “Because a judicial exception is not eligible subject matter, Bilski, 561 U.S. at 601, 95 USPQ2d at 1005-06 (quoting Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. at 309, 206 USPQ at 197 (1980)), if there are no additional claim elements besides the judicial exception, or if the additional claim elements merely recite another judicial exception, that is insufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See, e.g., RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co., 855 F.3d 1322, 1327, 122 USPQ2d 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2017)”; see also MPEP 2106.05(I) – “An inventive concept ‘cannot be furnished by the unpatentable law of nature (or natural phenomenon or abstract idea) itself.’ Genetic Techs. Ltd. v. Merial LLC, 818 F.3d 1369, 1376, 118 USPQ2d 1541, 1546 (Fed. Cir. 2016)”).
103:
Applicant's amendments overcome the rejection made under 35 U.S.C. § 103 to claims 1-3, 13, 15, 17, 18, 20-23, and 25, it is withdrawn. Regarding claims 6 and 10-12, Applicant's arguments filed with respect to the rejections made under 35 U.S.C. § 103 have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Claim Objections
Claim 1-3, 13, 15, 17, 18, 20-23, and 25 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites, “the camera captures an image of a receptacle type of the provider charging station” (emphasis added). It appears that the antecedent basis for this limitation is “the one or more preferences including an availability of a camera at provider charging stations” (emphasis added). This provides support for plural charging stations, but not a singular charging station as recited in the first limitation above. As such, the claim should read, “the one or more preferences including an availability of a camera at a provider station of provider charging stations” (emphasis added). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 13 recites, “and wherein the predictions are based on a camera associated with the matched charging stations, the receptacle types of the matched charging stations, based on the plug type for the electric vehicle, based on the availabilities of the matched charging stations, based on the availability preference, based on the locations of the matched charging stations, and based on the location of the electric vehicle” (emphasis added). It appears that this limitation contains a typographical/grammatical error and should read, “and wherein the predictions are based on a camera associated with the matched charging stations, based on the receptacle types of the matched charging stations, based on the plug type for the electric vehicle, based on the availabilities of the matched charging stations, based on the availability preference, based on the locations of the matched charging stations, and based on the location of the electric vehicle” (emphasis added). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 13 further recites “cause an operation of the electric vehicle by interacting with the list of the identifying information for the at least one matched charging station” (emphasis added). It appears that this limitation contains a typographical/grammatical error and should read, “causing an operation of the electric vehicle by interacting with the list of the identifying information for the at least one matched charging station” (emphasis added).
Claims 2, 3, and 21-23 are objected to by virtue of dependency on claim 1. Claims 15, 17, 18, 20, and 25 are objected to by virtue of dependency on claim 13.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-3 and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites, “match the receptacle type for each of the one or more matched charging stations to the vehicle, based on the location of the vehicle relative to a location of each of the one or more matched charging stations, and based on the one or more preferences” (emphasis added). This limitation is not supported by the specification. Applicant states that Support for the amendments to claim 1 can be found in at least paragraphs [0041], [0047], [0059], and [0082] (Remarks, p. 11). Applicant’s specification teaches: matching the charging station to a driver device based on the receptacle type matching a plug type for an electric vehicle that is associated with the driver device, based on the availability of the charging station, based on the location of the charging station, and based on the additional information [0007]; matching a guest user’s charging need against the data of one or more charger/plug receptacle hosts [0047]; Matching can include comparing multiple factors including location, date/time charge needed, vehicle type, charger type, plug receptacle type, etc. [0047]; and sorting matching chargers or plug receptacles by an AI/ML model that can predict which charger or chargers or plug receptacles are most likely to be selected by the guest user [0047]. However, it does not contain any description that would convey to a person skilled in the relevant art that the receptacle type is matched based on the location of the vehicle. Examiner notes that sorting or predicting matches in not the same as performing the matching. There are no other sections of Applicant’s specification that teach the amended limitations. Therefore, claim 1 fails to comply with the written description requirement.
Claims 2, 3, and 21-23 are rejected by virtue of dependency on claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 13, 15, 17, 18, 20, and 25 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 13 recites, “displaying a list of identifying information for the matched charging stations in an order that is sorted based on predictions of at least one selected matched charging station, wherein the selected matched charging station is selected from the matched charging stations, and wherein the predictions are based on …” (emphasis added). This limitation is unclear. It is unclear because it refers to “predictions”, which is plural. However, it is not clear how there can be multiple predictions in the case where only a one charging station is matched. Furthermore, the antecedent basis for “the selected matched charging station” is unclear. Claim 13 previously recites, “at least one selected matched charging station”, which appears to be the intended antecedent basis. However, “at least one” can potentially include more than one selected matched charging station. As such, it is unclear which selected matched charging station is the selected matched charging station. For the purposes of examination, claim 13 is interpreted to read, “displaying a list of identifying information for the matched charging stations in an order that is sorted based on one or more predictions of at least one selected matched charging station, wherein the at least one selected matched charging station is selected from the matched charging stations, and wherein the one or more predictions are based on …” (emphasis added). Appropriate correction is required. Examiner notes that claims 15 and 25 also refer to “the predictions” and require similar correction.
Claim 13 recites, “matching at least one charging station from the respective charging stations to the guest device based on the receptacle types of the respective charging stations matching the plug type for the electric vehicle to determine matched charging stations” (emphasis added). The beginning of the limitation recites “matching at least one charging station”, which includes the case of matching a single charging station. However, the end of the limitation recites, “determine matched charging stations”, which only includes plural charging stations. As such, it is unclear how many charging stations are matched. For the purposes of Examination, the claim is interpreted to read, “matching at least one or more charging stations from the respective charging stations to the guest device based on the receptacle types of the respective charging stations matching the plug type for the electric vehicle to determine the matched charging stations” (emphasis added). Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 15, 17, 18, 20, and 25 are rejected by virtue of dependency on claim 13.
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 1-3, 13, 15, 17, 18, and 20-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Independent Claims
MPEP 2106 Step 2A- Prong 1:
Independent claim 1 recites, receive a plug type for charging a battery of the vehicle and a location of the vehicle;
receive one or more preferences for a user of the vehicle, the one or more preferences including a camera at provider charging stations;
captures an image of a receptacle type of the provider charging station; and the image is stored;
assess the image to determine a receptacle type of the provider charging station;
receive identifying information for one or more matched charging stations from the provider charging stations that are matched to the vehicle based on the plug type of the vehicle, wherein identifying information includes the receptacle type of the provider charging station
match the receptacle type for each of the one or more matched charging stations to the vehicle, based on the location of the vehicle relative to a location of each of the one or more matched charging stations, and based on the one or more preferences;
receive a selection of a selected charging station from the one or more matched charging stations;
after receiving the selection of the selected charging station, display additional information for the selected charging station;
and cause a reservation of at least one of the provider charging stations for future use by the vehicle based on at least one of the receptacle type determined from the stored image and the selected charging station.
The limitations above are processes that under broadest reasonable interpretation cover “certain methods of organizing human activity” (including sales activities or behaviors, or business relations). Specifically, matching and reserving charging station for electric vehicle is establishing business relationships and performing sales activities.
Additionally, the limitations include mental processes (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion) because they can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using pen and paper. Specifically, claims to send information regarding a charger compatibility and preferences, asses an image to determine a receptacle type, matching a driver to a charging station, and reserving a charging station can all be practically performed in the human mind, or by a human using pen and paper.
Independent claim 13 recites, receiving receptacle types for respective charging stations, availabilities of the respective charging stations, and locations of the respective charging stations;
receiving a plug type for an electric vehicle, an availability preference for using the respective charging stations, and a location of the electric vehicle;
matching at least one charging station from the respective charging stations to the guest device based on the receptacle types of the respective charging stations matching the plug type for the electric vehicle to determine matched charging stations, based on the availabilities of the matched charging stations, based on the availability preference, based on the locations of the matched charging stations, and based on the location of the electric vehicle;
displaying a list of identifying information for the matched charging stations in an order that is sorted based on predictions of at least one selected matched charging station,
wherein the selected matched charging station is selected from the matched charging stations,
and wherein the predictions are based on a camera associated with the matched charging stations, the receptacle types of the matched charging stations, based on the plug type for the electric vehicle, based on the availabilities of the matched charging stations, based on the availability preference, based on the locations of the matched charging stations, and based on the location of the electric vehicle;
and cause an operation by interacting with the list of the identifying information for the at least one matched charging station.
The limitations above are processes that under broadest reasonable interpretation cover “certain methods of organizing human activity” (including sales activities or behaviors, or business relations). Specifically, matching and reserving charging station for electric vehicle is establishing business relationships and performing sales activities.
Additionally, the limitations include mental processes (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion) because they can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using pen and paper. Specifically, claims to confirm receptacle type, send and receive information regarding a charging station, matching a charging station to a driver, and reserving a charging station can all be practically performed in the human mind, or by a human using pen and paper.
MPEP 2106 Step 2A- Prong 2:
The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. Claims 1 and 13 as a whole amount to: merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, or “apply it”; or generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Independent claims 1 and 13 recite the following additional elements to perform the above recited steps: a device associated with a vehicle (claim 1), memory (claim 1), a computer system including a processor (claim 1), a camera (claim 1), provider devices (claim 13), and a guest device (claim 13). These additional elements are generic computer components performing generic computer functions at a high level of generality, and are recited at a high level of generality. These additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
Furthermore, claim 13 recites the additional element of “cause an operation of the electric vehicle”. This additional element is described at high level of generality such that, when viewed as a whole, the additional element does no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (i.e., operating electric vehicles).
Individually and as a whole, these additional elements do not integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application because the claims do not: improve the functioning of the computer itself or any other technology or technical field; apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine; effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; add meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment to transform the judicial exception into patent-eligible subject matter; amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer.
MPEP 2106 Step 2B:
Independent claims 1 and 13 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional elements are generic computer components performing generic computer functions at a high level of generality and/or generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Alone or in combination, the additional elements do not contribute significantly more than the judicial exception and as a result, the claims are ineligible.
Dependent Claims
Dependent claims 2, 3, 15, 17, 21-23, and 25 recite additional details that merely narrow the previously recited abstract idea limitations without reciting any additional elements. They are therefore, ineligible for the reasons as discussed above with respect to independent claims 1 and 13. The additional elements in claims 18, 20, and 21 are discussed below.
MPEP 2106 Step 2A- Prong 2:
Dependent claim 18, recites additional details that merely narrow the previously recited abstract idea. Claim 18 also recites the additional element of “wherein the electric vehicle is the guest device”. This additional element is recited at a high level of generality such that when viewed as a whole, the additional element does no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (i.e., operating electric vehicles) (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Dependent claim 20, recites additional details that merely narrow the previously recited abstract idea. Claim 20 also recites the additional elements of a machine learning model. This additional element is recited at a high level of generality such that when viewed as a whole, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Dependent claim 21, recites additional details that merely narrow the previously recited abstract idea. Claim 21 also recites the additional element of “receive an input to approve autonomous driving of the vehicle to the selected charging station”. This additional element is recited at a high level of generality such that when viewed as a whole, the additional element does no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (i.e., operating autonomous vehicles) (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
MPEP 2106 Step 2B:
With respect to claims 18 and 21, as discussed above with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional element amounts to no more than: generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, and is not a practical application of the abstract idea. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e., (i) generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)), does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept at Step 2B.
Therefore, the additional elements of “wherein the electric vehicle is the guest device” and “receive an input to approve autonomous driving of the vehicle to the selected charging station”, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept at Step 2B. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. Thus, claims 18 and 21 are also ineligible.
With respect to claim 20, as discussed above with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional element amounts to no more than: a recitation of the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e., applying the exception using a generic computer component, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept at Step 2B.
Therefore, the additional element of a package acceptance component and a mobile device of the recipient, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept at Step 2B. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. Thus, claim 20 is also ineligible.
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 6 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. 2019/0383637 to Teske (Teske) in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2019/0275893 to Sham (Sham) in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2020/0294078 to Hu et al. (Hu).
As to claim 6, Teske teaches, a device associated with an electric vehicle, the device comprising: (“As used herein, the term “electric vehicle” may refer to any vehicle that is capable of receiving input from an electrical energy source (e.g., a charging station) to charge a battery or other energy storage unit of the vehicle …” and “… Examples of such end user devices include mobile devices (e.g., smartphones, tablets, laptops, etc.), personal computing devices (e.g., desktop computers), vehicle-based computing devices (e.g., infotainment systems, navigation systems, and/or other computing devices of a vehicle), etc. …” [0024 and 0034]);
memory; and a computer system comprising a processor, the processor configured to execute instructions that are stored in the memory, wherein the instructions, when executed, cause the processor to (“… With reference to FIG. 14, the computing environment 1400 includes one or more processing units, such as central processing unit (CPU) 1410 and graphics or co-processing unit 1415, and memory 1420, 1425. In FIG. 14, this basic configuration 1430 is included within a dashed line. The processing units 1410, 1415 execute computer-executable instructions…” [0082-0083]):
receive a charger compatibility for the electric vehicle and a location of the electric vehicle (“… The vehicle information may also include charging system information for the vehicle, including an indication of a charging connector (e.g., a connector type and/or power level, or a standardized connector code) and/or any adapters for expanding compatibility of the charging connector of the vehicle …” [0050-0051]);
receive preferences for a user of the electric vehicle (“The client device 104 illustrated in FIG. 1 may include an end user device, such as a device to which a user directly provides input (e.g., requesting charging station queries, setting user preferences, inputting user/vehicle information, etc. …” and “FIG. 8 shows an example user interface 800 for setting and/or adjusting parameters for a charging station query …” [0034 and 0063-0064]),
the preferences including at least a rating associated with charging stations (“… Example additional settings include charging networks of interest, maximum distance from a current location/location of interest, minimum number of connectors at a given charging station that are currently-available (e.g., not being used to charge another vehicle) or predicted to be available by an arrival time, minimum charging station rating from one or more user review databases, etc. …” [0064]);
display identifying information for one or more matched charging stations from the charging stations, (“… The instructions of the query servicing unit 120 may be further executable to identify mapping data for the charging stations that fit the query parameters and transmit the mapping data to the client device 104 as a query response” and “FIG. 5 is a flow chart of an example method 500 for servicing a charging station query …” and “The user interface 700 may include user interface elements to adjust the query results output. For example, a station list view element 708 may be selectable to toggle from a map view to a list view showing a list of charging stations (e.g., a list of charging station identifiers, such as charging station names, and/or selected information about the charging stations, such as a location of/distance to the charging stations and connector codes available at the charging stations) that fit parameters of a search query …” [0030 and 0045-0048 and 0059]);
select a matched charging station from the one or more matched charging stations (“… For example, the charging station indicators may be selectable user interface objects, which are selectable to view information regarding the associated charging station (e.g., a full name, address, distance from a current location/location of interest, charging network, connector codes for connectors, and/or other information for the associated charging station) and/or to provide additional options relating to travelling to the associated charging station and/or charging at the associated charging station (e.g., a charge time for charging an electric vehicle associated with the user at the charging station using a connector corresponding to the selected indicator)” [0058]).
Teske does not teach, the electric vehicle configured for autonomous driving; and cause the electric vehicle to autonomously drive toward the location of the selected matched charging station. However, Sham teaches, the electric vehicle configured for autonomous driving (“… In other implementations, the guidance information can be generated by the guidance processor 260 in such a way as to autonomously guide, or assist in the autonomous guidance of, the requesting vehicle to the identified EV charging station(s) 102” [0045]);
and cause the electric vehicle to autonomously drive toward the location of the selected matched charging station (“… In other implementations, the guidance information can be generated by the guidance processor 260 in such a way as to autonomously guide, or assist in the autonomous guidance of, the requesting vehicle to the identified EV charging station(s) 102” [0045]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to include, the electric vehicle configured for autonomous driving; and cause the electric vehicle to autonomously drive toward the location of the selected matched charging station, as taught by Sham with the system and method for charging station matching of Teske. Motivation to do so comes from the teachings of Sham that doing so would improve routing and scheduling of charging of the individual EVs through the EV charging stations [0003].
Teske in view of Sham does not teach, display identifying information in a sorted order based on the at least one rating of the one or more matched charging stations. However, Hu teaches, display identifying information in a sorted order based on the at least one rating of the one or more matched charging stations (“… For example, the charging station recommendation device 410 may sort the evaluation of the at least one charging station in a descending order or an ascending order …” [0117]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to include, display identifying information in a sorted order based on the at least one rating of the one or more matched charging stations, as taught by Hu with the system and method for charging station matching of Teske in view of Sham. Motivation to do so comes from the teachings of Hu that doing so would improve the user's convenience [0117].
As to claim 10, Teske in view of Sham in view of Hu teaches all of the limitations of claim 6 as discussed above. Teske further teaches, wherein the one or more matched charging stations are displayed as a list that is sorted in an order based further on a difference between the location of the electric vehicle and locations of the one or more matched charging stations (“… The mapping data may include a list of geolocations of the identified charging stations, which is usable by a client device to generate or populate a map for display showing the locations of the identified charging stations …” and “The user interface 700 may include user interface elements to adjust the query results output. For example, a station list view element 708 may be selectable to toggle from a map view to a list view showing a list of charging stations (e.g., a list of charging station identifiers, such as charging station names, and/or selected information about the charging stations, such as a location of/distance to the charging stations and connector codes available at the charging stations) that fit parameters of a search query …” [0045-0049 and 0059]).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. 2019/0383637 to Teske (Teske) in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2019/0275893 to Sham (Sham) in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2020/0294078 to Hu et al. (Hu), as applied to claim 6 above, and in further view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2020/0333151 to Akhtar (Akhtar).
As to claim 11, Teske in view of Sham in view of Hu teaches all of the limitations of claim 6 as discussed above. Teske further teaches, wherein the one or more matched charging stations are matched to the device based further on the date and time for charging the electric vehicle (“… Indicating a connector count may be helpful in charging station query servicing, which may utilize connector count to estimate whether a selected charging station is likely to have an available charging bay (e.g. a charging bay that is not in use to charge another vehicle) associated with a selected connector code …” and “… Example additional settings include charging networks of interest, maximum distance from a current location/location of interest, minimum number of connectors at a given charging station that are currently-available (e.g., not being used to charge another vehicle) or predicted to be available by an arrival time, minimum charging station rating from one or more user review databases, etc. …” [0040 and 0064]).
Teske in view of Sham in view of Hu does not teach, send a date and time to charge for the electric vehicle. However, Akhtar teaches, send a date and time to charge for the electric vehicle (“FIG. 1 illustrates a block diagram of a preferred embodiment on Peer to Peer Charging Flow …” [0010-0011] Examiner notes Fig. 1 showing “Charge Date & Time” under “Book My Charge”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to include, send a date and time to charge for the electric vehicle, as taught by Akhtar with the system and method for charging station matching of Teske in view of Sham in view of Hu. Motivation to do so comes from the teachings of Akhtar that doing so would provide seamless charging process and infrastructure solutions [0005].
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. 2019/0383637 to Teske (Teske) in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2019/0275893 to Sham (Sham) in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2020/0294078 to Hu et al. (Hu) in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2020/0333151 to Akhtar (Akhtar), as applied to claim 11 above, and in further view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2023/0286402 to Kakuchi (Kakuchi).
As to claim 12, Teske in view of Sham in view of Hu in view of Akhtar teaches all of the limitations of claim 11 as discussed above. Teske further teaches, and verify vehicle data associated with the electric vehicle based on the vehicle information number (“… The determined connector codes may be stored in the vehicle connector database 116 in association with an identifier of a vehicle make/model and/or a particular vehicle identifier (e.g., a Vehicle Identification Number [VIN] for a particular vehicle) …” and “… For example, the server may access a user/vehicle profiles database, such as the user/vehicle profiles database 118 of FIG. 1, to identify a vehicle and connectors that are associated with a user providing the query …” and “… In still other examples, where the vehicle information includes a vehicle identifier and/or other information (e.g., make/model, etc.), the server may consult a database, such as vehicle connector database 116 and/or user/vehicle profiles database 118 of FIG. 1, to match a connector code to a vehicle described by the vehicle information” [0028 and 0047 and 0050-0051]).
Teske in view of Sham in view of Hu in view of Akhtar does not teach, capture an image of a vehicle information number associated with the electric vehicle. However, Kakuchi teaches, capture an image of a vehicle information number associated with the electric vehicle (“… The controller 30 reads an identifier (vehicle number) of the vehicle connected to the power plug 12 from an image of the camera 14 installed in each station 11, and recognizes the vehicle of the user …” and “… The controller 30 reads an identifier (vehicle number) of the vehicle connected to the power plug 12 from an image of the camera 14 installed in each station 11, and recognizes the vehicle of the user …” [0040 and 0061]);
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to include, capture an image of a vehicle information number associated with the electric vehicle, as taught by Kakuchi with the system and method for charging station matching of Teske in view of Sham in view of Hu in view of Akhtar. One having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so for the benefit of greater accuracy and user convenience in reading a VIN.
Allowable Over Prior Art
Claims 1-3, 13, 15, 17, 18, 20, 21-23, and 25 are allowable over prior art. However, Examiner notes that there is a 101 rejection of the claims as well as objections and 112(a) and 112(b) rejections.
Available prior art, alone or in combination fails to teach all the following claim limitations:
“the one or more preferences including, a camera at provider charging stations, wherein: the camera captures an image of a receptacle type of the provider charging station; and the image is stored in the memory; assess, by the device, the image to determine a receptacle type of the provider charging station” in independent claim 1 (and similarly for dependent claims 2, 3, and 21-23);
“and cause a reservation of at least one of the provider charging stations for future use by the vehicle based on at least one of the receptacle type determined from the stored image and the selected charging station” in independent claim 1 (and similarly for dependent claims 2, 3, and 21-23);
“and wherein the predictions are based on a camera associated with the matched charging stations” in independent claim 13 (and similarly for dependent claims 15, 17, 18, 20, and 25).
The following are the closest prior art:
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2019/0383637 to Teske (Teske) teaches that charging stations are matched to a user based on user preferences. However, Teske does not teach a camera (particularly that that the user preference is based on a camera being associated with the matched charging stations, the predictions are based on a camera, or that the camera is used to capture an image to identify receptacle type.
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2021/0213844 to Singuru et al. (Singuru) teaches that charging stations are matched to a user based on user preferences. However, Singuru does not teach a camera (particularly that that the user preference is based on a camera being associated with the matched charging stations, the predictions are based on a camera, or that the camera is used to capture an image to identify receptacle type.
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2019/0275893 to Sham (Sham) teaches that charging stations are matched to a user based on user preferences. However, Sham does not teach a camera (particularly that that the user preference is based on a camera being associated with the matched charging stations, the predictions are based on a camera, or that the camera is used to capture an image to identify receptacle type.
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2024/0294088 to Wu et al. (Wu) teaches that charging stations are matched to a user based on user preferences, including making charging station recommendations (i.e., predictions). However, Wu does not teach a camera (particularly that that the user preference is based on a camera being associated with the matched charging stations, the predictions are based on a camera, or that the camera is used to capture an image to identify receptacle type.
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2021/0252991 to Pizzurro et al. (Pizzurro) teaches a camera at a charging station that takes an image of an electric vehicle and assesses the image to determine the connector type of the electric vehicle. However, Pizzurro does not teach that user preferences include a camera at provider charging stations or capturing an image of the receptacle type at the charging station.
NPL “The best EV charging apps help you find the right station for any electric car” to Looper (Looper) teaches various EV charging apps that allow users to filter charging stations by connector type and other preferences.
NPL “Anyone able to help identify what kind of outlet this is? …” on Reddit r/evcharging (Reddit) teaches identifying an outlet type from an image.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHANIE S WALLICK whose telephone number is (703)756-1081. 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, Shannon Campbell can be reached at (571) 272-5587. 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.
/S.S.W./Examiner, Art Unit 3628
/RUPANGINI SINGH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628
Prosecution Insights