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
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 4-23 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. Regarding independent claims 4,11,18 the claimed invention recites an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recites the abstract idea of filtering map locations which is a mental process. Other than reciting a electric vehicle and management system nothing in the claims precludes the steps from being performed mentally. But for the electric vehicle and management system the limitations on inform and display first or second type of charging spot on a map is a process that under its broadest reasonable interpretation could be performed by mentally but for the recitation of generic computer elements. If claim limitations, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Further the above limitations related to stripped of the identified additional and insignificant elements could also be considered a “Method of Organizing Human Activity” relating to the managing human behavior and interactions. Thus, the claims recite an abstract idea.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The computers 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. The additional element(s) does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer environment is not a practical application of the abstract idea and does not take the claim out of the mental process or method of organizing human activity grouping.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of an electric vehicle and management system amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic technological environment. (Yu v. Apple Inc., (Fed. Cir., June 11, 2021), The majority opinion found that the claim was directed to the abstract idea of using multiple pictures to enhance each other, and this idea has been known by photographers for over a century. Although the claim related to a specific configuration of the camera, the majority found that the individual components were well-known and conventional, and that they serve only their basic functions. In the words of the court, the claim elements identifying the camera, the image sensors, and the lenses were “simply a generic environment in which to carry out the abstract idea.”). Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. Collecting, analyzing and displaying information, and receiving and transmitting over a network are conventional in the computing arts. (MPEP 2106.05h; See also MPEP 2106.05, Alice v. CLS, “. Nearly every computer will include a ‘communications controller’ and ‘data storage unit’ capable of performing the basic calculation, storage, and transmission functions required by the method claims.”).] The claims are not patent eligible.
Regarding the dependent claims, these claims are directed to limitations which serve to limit the map filtering steps. The subject matter of claims 5/12 (first type of charging spot excluded for vehicle not included in management), 6/13/19 (second type of charging spot is excluded from management), 7/14/20 (management controls electric rate), 8/15/21 (present charging spot in accordance with vehicle location), 9/16/22 (present charging spot in accordance with availability), 10/17/23 (present charging spot in accordance with current time) appear to add additional steps to the abstract idea, implemented by generic computers. These claims neither introduce a new abstract idea nor additional limitations which are significantly more than an abstract idea. They provide descriptive details that offer helpful context, but have no impact on statutory subject matter eligibility.
Therefore the limitations on the invention, when viewed individually and in ordered combination are directed to in-eligible subject matter.
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 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.
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 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 of this title, 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.
Claims 4-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Forlini, “Tesla Adds Dash-Screen Trip Planner to Its Mobile App”, 4/2023,
https://www.pcmag.com/news/tesla-adds-dash-screen-trip-planner-to-its-mobile-app?test_uuid=04IpBmWGZleS0I0J3epvMrC&test_variant=B
“Guide To PlugShare Map Filters”, 5/2022,
https://help.plugshare.com/hc/en-us/articles/6136655353491-Guide-To-PlugShare-Map-Filters
Regarding Claim 1,
A vehicle charging system including vehicles capable of running on electric power and a management system of the vehicles through communication network,
wherein one of the vehicles comprises:
a battery to be charged with electric power;
a vehicle communicator in communication with the management system;
a vehicle navigation system with a map display; and
a vehicle controller of the vehicle navigation system to have the map display present a location of a first type of charging spot controlled by the management system … , and
wherein the management system comprises:
a system communicator in communication with the vehicle communicator to inform the one of the vehicles of the first type of charging spot for the map display to present the location of the first type of charging spot … if the one of the vehicles is included in the management system.
Forlini discloses that Tesla Motors vehicle and the Tesla mobile app can display a map with Tesla Supercharger locations for owners of Tesla vehicles. (Telsa, p.2, “Tesla owners who want to map out a drive to the nearest Supercharger have a new way to plot their route as the carmaker has integrated its dash-screen trip planner into the Tesla mobile app.
Tesla already offers its trip planner on the web, and that's also accessible on mobile browsers, but it should be a smoother experience from within the official Tesla app.
As Electrek reports, the app experience mirrors the one inside the car. Users can navigate to Location > Enter Address, and it plans both the driving route and charging stops along the way. In the example below, accessed via desktop, it suggests four charging stops along the drive from Albuquerque, NM to Santa Monica, CA, with the estimated time to charge at each stop.”)
Forlini does not explicitly disclose
in addition to a location of a second type of charging spot other than the first type of charging spot
in addition to the location of the second type of charging spot
Plugshare is a guide discussing features of the Plugshare charging station locator app. (Plugshare, p.1). Plugshare discloses that a charger locator can display other types of charging stations in addition to member charging stations. (Plugshare, Networks section, “If you prefer to use a specific network of chargers or have a membership with certain charging networks, like ChargePoint or EVgo, you can filter for those options. This is helpful for users who have a payment fob or card with that company to provide easy payment.”; Optional Filters Choices section, “Show Private Homes
Adds "Blue" icon locations of users who have added their personal charging station to the map. We suggest only looking for these in emergency situations.”; Amenities section, “Amenities
Amenities help find local accommodations while you are charging your vehicle. Another helpful tool in case other requests you desire arrive at the same time.
Free Charging
This function will allow you to find sites that have truly free charging. As more companies are going to a paid model, your options may be limited. However, you might find a location that is a dime of a dozen!”) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to combine Forlini with the charging station locator of Plugshare with the motivation of finding charging stations. Id.
Regarding Claim 5, Forlini and Plugshare disclose the system of claim 4.
a vehicle capable of running on electric power which is excluded from the management system and has a vehicle navigation system with a map display for presenting the location of the second type of charging spot with the location of the first type of charging spot excluded from the map display.
See prior art rejection of claim 4 regarding Plugshare. The examiner understands a EV locator can selectively filter charging stations that the vehicle is not a member of.
Regarding Claim 6, Forlini and Plugshare disclose the system of claim 5.
wherein the second type of charging spot is excluded from the management system.
See prior art rejection of claim 5. The examiner understands that different companies run different charging networks with different memberships.
Regarding Claim 7, Forlini and Plugshare disclose the system of claim 4.
wherein the management system controls electric rate liquidation about electric power charged from the first type of charging spot to the one of the vehicles.
Plugshare discloses that the charging provider provides power at a particular rate. (Plugshare, Kilowatt Range section, “Kilowatt Range
As charging providers and manufacturers have ramped up maximum power intake levels, we've worked to acquire and verify power level data to provide a satisfactory starting point for power filters to work from. You can find more about our minimum power data and requirements to see these power filters here: Minimum Power Data and Filters”) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to combine Forlini with the charging station of Plugshare with the motivation of providing vehicle power. Id.
Regarding Claim 8, Forlini and Plugshare disclose the system of claim 4.
wherein the vehicle controller controls the vehicle navigation system to have the map display present the location of the first type of charging spot in accordance with a location of the one of the vehicles.
See prior art rejection of claim 1 regarding Forlini.
Regarding Claim 9, Forlini and Plugshare disclose the system of claim 4.
wherein the vehicle controller controls the vehicle navigation system to have the map display present the location of the first type of charging spot in accordance with availability of the first type of charging spot.
(Forlini,p.2, “Other apps like Plugshare offer trip planners, for both Teslas and non-Teslas. A recent update to the Waze app also helps drivers find chargers along the route. But Tesla drivers are more likely to use its own trip planner, however, as it highlights Supercharger stops specifically, knows the driver's vehicle details, and can calculate the time to charge at each stop rather than listing them. Tesla's map will also show the number of available chargers at a given location.”)
Regarding Claim 10, Forlini and Plugshare disclose the system of claim 4.
wherein the vehicle controller controls the vehicle navigation system to have the map display present the location of the first type of charging spot in accordance with current time.
Forlini discloses that the charging navigation feature of Tesla could operate on demand in a vehicle at its current time.
PNG
media_image1.png
720
960
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(Forlini, p.3)
Regarding Claims 11-17,18-23
See prior art rejections of claim 4-10,4,6-10
Conclusion
Relevant art not relied on but made of record include North 20150226572 (para 0069, “[0069] As another example, the station identification module 230 may identify a charging station that may satisfy parameters for a current trip of an electric vehicle when the station is located proximate to a current geographical route traveled by the electric vehicle, when the station is located proximate to a current geographical route predicted to be traveled by the electric vehicle, when the station has an associated charging cost that is below a predetermined maximum cost to charge the electric vehicle, when the station is provided by a charging network of which the electric vehicle is a member, and so on.”)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALLEN C CHEIN whose telephone number is (571)270-7985. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am -5pm.
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, Florian Zeender can be reached at (571) 272-6790. 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.
/ALLEN C CHEIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627
Prosecution Insights