Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 17, 2026
Application No. 18/929,554

Method for efficient electric vehicle battery recharge by automatic recharge station

Final Rejection §112
Filed
Oct 28, 2024
Examiner
DIAO, M BAYE
Art Unit
2859
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
unknown
OA Round
2 (Final)
88%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
2y 7m
To Grant
91%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 88% — above average
88%
Career Allow Rate
1247 granted / 1424 resolved
+19.6% vs TC avg
Minimal +3% lift
Without
With
+3.4%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 7m
Avg Prosecution
40 currently pending
Career history
1464
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
5.5%
-34.5% vs TC avg
§103
39.1%
-0.9% vs TC avg
§102
24.2%
-15.8% vs TC avg
§112
22.6%
-17.4% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1424 resolved cases

Office Action

§112
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 . Acknowledgement is made of amendment filed on 08/11/2025 in which claims 1-2 and the specification have been amended. By this amendment, claims 1-2 are still pending in the application. Drawings The drawings were received on 08/11/2025. These drawings are acceptable. Pro Se Applicant It appears the inventor(s) filed the current application pro se (i.e., without the benefit of representation by a registered patent practitioner). While inventors named as applicants in a patent application may prosecute the application pro se, lack of familiarity with patent examination practice and procedure may result in missed opportunities in obtaining optimal protection for the invention disclosed. The inventor(s) may wish to secure the services of a registered patent practitioner to prosecute the application, because the value of a patent is largely dependent upon skilled preparation and prosecution. The Office cannot aid in selecting a patent practitioner. A listing of registered patent practitioners is available at https://oedci.uspto.gov/OEDCI/. Applicants may also obtain a list of registered patent practitioners located in their area by writing to Mail Stop OED, Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313-1450. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention. Claims 1-2 are still 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. In claim 1, line 7, prong c. reads “Opening the application installed on the EEV, which:”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this underlined limitation in the claim. Under prong b) indentation 1. reads “identify the driver (automatically);” and should be changed to --automatically identify the driver;-- Similarly, under prong b) indentation 2. reads “verify availability of funds (automatically);” and should be changed to -- automatically verify availability of funds;-- Similarly, under prong b) indentation 3. reads “identify the charging station number (interactive, the driver providing the charger number);” should be rephrased to -- identify the charging station number interactively with the driver providing the charger number;-- Under prong i. Preparing the EEV for battery recharge: “a) Opening the cover of the EEV inlet (automatically);” should read -- a) Opening automatically the cover of the EEV inlet In prong l. it is stated: “Retracting the charger robot into the charger cabin and closing the EEV inlet cover and simultaneously sending a bill to a bank:” “f) Simultaneously sending the bill to the bank;” These two limitations are unclear as somewhat redundant since in prong l., the limitations of, “…simultaneously sending a bill to a bank” have been already recited and repeated in prong f) and thus render the claims unclear and indefinite and if it is just a heading in prong l., then applicant needs to clarify it in his response. In claim 2, line 1, the limitations “…multi-inlet EEVs,” should be defined at its very first apparition in the claims as was done in claim 1, line 1.(note-the two claims are independent and thus defining it in claim 1 does not exempt you from its definition in claim 2) and thus render the claim indefinite. In claim 2, under prong b. and indentation a), the underlined limitations of, “Opening the application installed on the EEV, which:” lack antecedent basis. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 1-2 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action. Conclusion This action is a final rejection and closes the prosecution of this application. Applicant’s reply under 37 CFR 1.113 to this action is limited to an appeal to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, an amendment complying with the requirements set forth below, or a request for continued examination (RCE) to reopen prosecution where permitted. Please note that the Office also offers initiatives that are available to applicants after the close of prosecution. See https://www.uspto.gov/patents/initiatives/uspto-patent-applications-iniatives-timeline for more information. General information on the Patent Trial and Appeal Board is available at: www.uspto.gov/patents/ptab. The information at this page includes guidance on time limited options that may assist the applicant contemplating appealing an examiner’s rejection. It also includes information on pro bono (free) legal services and advice available for those who are under-resourced and considering an appeal at: https://www.uspto.gov/patents/ptab/free-legal-assistance. The page is best reviewed promptly after applicant has received a final rejection or the claims have been twice rejected because some of the noted assistance must be requested within one month from the date of the latest rejection. See MPEP § 1204 for more information on filing a notice of appeal. If applicant should desire to appeal any rejection made by the examiner, a Notice of Appeal must be filed within the period for reply. The Notice of Appeal must be accompanied by the fee required by 37 CFR 41.20(b)(1). The current fee amount is available at: www.uspto.gov/Fees. If applicant should desire to file an after-final amendment, entry of the proposed amendment cannot be made as a matter of right unless it merely cancels claims or complies with a formal requirement made in a previous Office action. Amendments touching the merits of the application which otherwise might not be proper may be admitted upon a showing of good and sufficient reasons why they are necessary and why they were not presented earlier. A reply under 37 CFR 1.113 to a final rejection must include cancellation of or appeal from the rejection of, each rejected claim. The filing of an amendment after final rejection, whether or not it is entered, does not stop the running of the statutory period for reply to the final rejection unless the examiner holds all of the claims to be in condition for allowance. If applicant should desire to continue prosecution in a utility or plant application filed on or after May 29, 2000 and have the finality of this Office action withdrawn, an RCE under 37 CFR 1.114 may be filed within the period for reply. See MPEP § 706.07(h) for more information on the requirements for filing an RCE. The application will become abandoned unless a Notice of Appeal, an after final reply that places the application in condition for allowance, or an RCE has been filed properly within the period for reply, or any extension of this period obtained under either 37 CFR 1.136(a) or (b). Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to M'BAYE DIAO whose telephone number is (571)272-6127. The examiner can normally be reached M-F; 10:00AM-6:30PM and OFF most of the time Friday when working IFP. 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, TAELOR KIM can be reached at 571-270-7166. 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. M'BAYE DIAO Primary Examiner Art Unit 2859 /M BAYE DIAO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2859 February 24, 2026
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Oct 28, 2024
Application Filed
Jul 16, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §112
Aug 02, 2025
Response Filed
Feb 24, 2026
Final Rejection — §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12600265
POWER SUPPLY DEVICE, ELECTRIC VEHICLE PROVIDED WITH POWER SUPPLY DEVICE, AND POWER STORAGE DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12601790
Battery Parameter Estimation Apparatus and Method
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12600258
MANAGEMENT OF CHARGING REQUESTS TO AVOID SECURITY ISSUES AND SERVICING DELAYS ACROSS CHARGING STATIONS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12594854
BATTERY CONTROL SYSTEM, BATTERY CONTROL METHOD AND ELECTRIC VEHICLE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12589665
PEER-TO-PEER DC FAST CHARGING
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
88%
Grant Probability
91%
With Interview (+3.4%)
2y 7m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 1424 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in for Full Analysis

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month