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
This communication is a non-final action in response to response to election/restriction requirement filed on 06/15/2026. Claims 1-14 are pending with claims 9-14 withdrawn.
Election/Restriction
Applicant's election with traverse of Invention I in the reply filed on 06/15/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that both inventions encompasses charging of usage-fee based on amount of charging power and a shared charging fee. This is not found persuasive because the invention are combination/sub-combination. Overlap is expected. Instead, invention II can have different utility and does not require the particulars of invention I for patentability. Therefore, they are independent and distinct as currently claimed.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Examiner would recommend Applicant to amend invention II to include claim 2’s features in subsequent amendment. In that situation, the combination would “require the particulars of the subcombination as claimed for patentability”. The restriction requirement can then be withdrawn or invention II can be rejoined.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The IDS filed 10/18/2024 is considered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because they recite an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 2A prong 1
As per claim 1, examiner believes the following limitation recites an abstract idea:
[…] calculate a charger usage fee based on a shared charging fee obtaining by adding a predetermined base fee to the additional fee provided […], and a usage time of the shared charger by a user;
[…] receives … a sharing change request requesting a change of an operating mode of the shared charger to a sharing mode in which a public charger is available to the user, and transmits the sharing change request […]
The above limitations, when viewed as a group, describes a series of step to calculate price of usage and transmit message to indicate availability (see claims 7-8 regarding how these messages are related to business operation). These would fall into establishing business relationship, which falls into certain methods of organizing human activities. Theses steps also can be performed mentally (noting collecting information of EPG is categorized as mental process), and therefore would also fall into mental process. Further, the calculating step would also falls into mathematical formula. Therefore, claim 1 would recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A prong 2
The additional elements of claim 1 would be physical hardware such as terminal and server. Examiner particular notes any vehicle or physical charger is outside the scope as claim only requires terminal’s and server’s involvement. The shared charger can be a data-label describing what the operating mode is for. These terminal and server are generic computer components discussed in high generality, they’re also only being used as an operating environment for the abstract idea. Similarly, even if the charger is considered part of the scope, it is only being used as an intended operating environment. Whether viewed individually or as an ordered combination, these additional elements are nothing more than merely generally linking the abstract idea to a particular field of use. They would not integrate the abstract idea into practical application. Therefore, claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B
As noted above in step 2A prong 2, of which the analysis is still applicable, claim 1’s additional elements, whether viewed individually or as an ordered combination, are merely generally linking the abstract idea to a particular field of use. They would not provide significantly more to an abstract idea either. Therefore, claim 1 is not eligible.
Claims 2-8 merely further limit the abstract idea by specifying the additional business aspect of the operation using similar additional element in the same manner. The analysis would remain substantially similar and would be ineligible over similar rationale set forth above.
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, 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goel (US 20220332210) in view of Lowenthal (US 20220084348)
As per claim 1, Goel discloses an electric vehicle charging system, the electric vehicle charging system comprising:
a host terminal on which a host application that receives instructions on an operating mode of a shared charger and an additional fee for use of the shared charger is installed (Fig. 1 for app and charging platform. See 0040, station bids to accept reservation); and
a charging point operator server configured to calculate a charger usage fee based on a shared charging fee obtaining by
wherein the charging point operator server receives, from a user terminal of the user, a sharing change request requesting a change of an operating mode of the shared charger to a sharing mode in which a public charger is available to the user, and transmits the sharing change request to the host terminal (0040, station submit bids on driver’s plan).
Goel discloses user pays a member fee and usage fee but does not explicitly states they’re added into a single charge though that would be at least implied with the use of “and” to link these two fees. In any case, Lowenthal teaches a charging station owner can set prices by combining a base fee with additional fee together (0030, price can be based on one or more of per charging session (base fee), per hour (usage time) and per amount of energy transferred (additional fee), which can be combined (combining two factors into five dollars per hour plus forty cents per kwh)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of present invention to combine Lowenthal’s owner defined pricing method with Goel’s method of allowing individual Tesla owner to rent out its charging equipment (0066) for the purpose of allowing the owner of equipment to make customized pricing decision.
As per claim 6, Goel further discloses the electric vehicle charging system of claim 1, wherein the charging point operator server is further configured to:
set a share of a first ratio and a share of a second ratio for the predetermined base fee and the additional fee as a Examiner notes usage fee would be 100% to operator and 0% to host); and
set a share of a third ratio and a share of a fourth ratio for the predetermined base fee and the additional fee as aExaminer notes member fee would be 100% to host and 0% to operator);
wherein a sum of the first ratio and the third ratio is 1, and a sum of the second ratio and the fourth ratio is 1 (0057).
Goel does not explicitly disclose revenue being profit. However, at this level of breadth, revenue and profit are just different names for the monetary value. Functionally, especially for the purpose of calculating, they’re both merely value used to do mathematical calculation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to make the variation of revenue to profit as they serve the exact same purpose.
Examiner notes if difference between profit and revenue are further incorporated into scope of the claim, the above analysis may no longer be applicable.
Claim(s) 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goel (US 20220332210) in view of Lowenthal (US 20220084348), further in view of Estes (US 20230401509)
As per claim 7, Goel teaches the electric vehicle charging system of claim 1, wherein:
Lowenthal teaches a similar when an operating mode for the shared charger is a non-public mode, the charging point operator server receives the sharing change request from the user terminal (see Fig. 9, public pricing is only available weekday 6 am to 4 pm. Other time would only available for Fleet. See Fig. 18, step 1850 regarding authorization transmitted to server ).
Goel/Lowenthal does not explicitly disclose combining these steps when an operating mode is in a non-public mode. However, they both disclose individual owners (e.g. Tesla owner or homeowner) participating in on-demand sharing.
Estes teaches a system of gig activities where participants are notified if price exceeds a threshold to encourage supply when there is a high-demand (0198).
It would have been obvious for one ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of present invention to combine Estes’ rules of notifying potential supplier of high price to boost supply of a high-demand activity with Goel/Lowenthal’s individual owner renting out its own charging equipment for the purpose of fulfilling requests when there is a high level of demand.
As per claim 8, Goel further discloses the electric vehicle charging system of claim 7, wherein: when a sharing mode change is received from the host terminal in response to the sharing request message, the charging point operator server transmits a sharing mode changing message to the user terminal (0040).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GEORGE CHEN whose telephone number is (571)270-5499. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30 AM -5:00 PM Eastern.
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.
GEORGE CHEN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3628
/GEORGE CHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628
Prosecution Insights