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 .
Status of the Claims
2. This Office Action is in response to the Applicant’s filing on 05/27/2026. Claims 1 - 14 were previously pending, of which claims 1 – 2, 4, 6 - 7 have been amended, no claims have been cancelled, and claims 15 - 16 have been newly added. Accordingly, claims 1 - 16 are currently pending and are being examined below.
Response to Arguments
3. With respect to the Applicant’s remarks, see pages 6 - 11, filed on 05/27/2026; Applicant’s “Amendment and Remarks” have been fully considered. Applicant’s remarks will be addressed in sequential order as they were presented.
4. With respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), Applicant has amended claim 4 in a way that now renders the rejection moot. Therefore, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) is withdrawn.
5. With respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101, Applicant has amended claim 1 & 7 to bypass the 35 U.S.C 101 rejection. Applicant’s “Amendment and Remarks” have been fully considered. The argument that claims 1 – 12 bypass the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection are not persuasive. Newly added claims 14 – 15 do not integrate the abstract idea into the practical application. Therefore, claims 14 – 15 will be added to the U.S.C. 101 rejection.
The added limitation merely requires displaying the results of the previously recited analysis and therefore constitutes insignificant post-solution activity. MPEP 2106.05(g) recognizes that post-solution activity that is merely incidental to the primary process does not meaningfully limit a claim or integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
In particular, the added displaying limitation does not improve the functioning of the navigation system or otherwise alter how the underlying analysis is performed. Rather, the navigational system merely serves as a conventional mechanism for preventing the information resulting from the abstract analysis. Accordingly, the amendment does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 is maintained.
6. With respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103, applicant’s “Amendment and Remarks” have been fully considered and are persuasive. The prior art of record does not appear to disclose the limitation “determining candidate routes for the planned trip by the navigation system based on the specified destination and the suitable charging stations;” as amended in claim 1. However, due to the nature of the applicant’s amendments, the scope of the applicant’s invention has changed and thus requires new analysis and new application of prior art and further search found that (name) did disclose this limitation as mapped in the final office action below.
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 - 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The Examiner has identified method Claim 1 as the claim that represents the claimed invention for analysis. Claim 1 recites the limitations of (additional elements emphasized in bold and are considered to be parsed from the remaining abstract idea):
A method for navigation support of an electric vehicle (EV) towing a trailer, the method comprising:
specifying, by a navigation system of the EV, a destination of the EV for a planned trip with the EV;
detecting, by a trailer detection device of the EV, that the trailer is connected to the EV; assessing, by the navigation system, charging stations along potential routes for the
specified destination that are suitable for recharging the EV in a state that the trailer is connected to the EV;
determining candidate routes for the planned trip by the navigation system based
on the specified destination and the suitable charging stations.
displaying the suitable charging stations on the candidate routes via the navigation system.
which is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation(s) as a Mental process (concept performed in the human mind) but for the recitation of generic computer elements. For example, a person could mentally specify a variety of routes based on charging stations that are known to provide enough space for a trailer.
With respect to Step 2A, Prong II, this judicial exception is not practically integrated.
With respect to Step 2B, the aforementioned additional elements are all generic computer elements have been held to be not significantly more than the abstract idea by Alice. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional elements of using the processors to receive information, make decisions, and supply instructions amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept.
Claim 7 cites the same limitations as that in claim 1, with the exception of adding more generic computer components, and are therefore also rejected under 35 USC § 101.
Claims 2, 4 – 6, 8, 10 - 16 further define characteristics of the system. However, these characteristics do not add limitations that would integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and are therefore also rejected under 35 USC § 101.
Claims 3, 9 recite limitations that include determining which can also be performed in the human mind and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, these claims are also rejected under 35 USC § 101.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 7, 9, 13 - 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20230108029A1 (hereinafter, “Salter”), and further in view of US20250108716A1 (hereinafter, “Alarcon”), and further in view of US20220260378A1 (hereinafter, “Hanchett”).
Regarding claims 1 & 7, Salter teaches a method for navigation support of an electric vehicle (EV) towing a trailer, the method comprising ([0022], [0037] – [0038] Fig. 1): Salter teaches an electrified vehicle (EV) (10) towing two trailers (14 – 15) [0022]. The EV (10) contains a GPS system (74) as a navigation aid (navigation support) to evaluate vehicle routes [0037] – [0038].
specifying, by a navigation system of the EV, a destination of the EV for a planned trip with the EV [0037] – [0038]; The GPS system (74) evaluates vehicle routes and determines charging stations that lie within an acceptable distance. The charging stations that are located by the GPS system (74) are considered the destination point for the EV when evaluating these vehicle routes for a planned trip.
12. Salter does not explicitly teach detecting, by a trailer detection device of the EV, that the trailer is connected to the EV ([0022] Fig. 2 & 4); Salter mentions EV (10) being hitched together with trailers (14 – 15) by the trailer hitch (18). These trailers contain battery units (16 – 17) which are purposed for carrying additional battery for the EV (10). Due to these trailers containing additional battery for the EV, it would be obvious that in order for the EV (10) to consume these connected additional batteries (16 – 17) from the trailers (14 – 15), the trailer hitch (18) would have to have some sort of detection mechanism.
However, Alarcon in the same field of endeavor, teaches detecting, by a trailer detection device of the EV, that the trailer is connected to the EV ([0060] – [0062] Fig. 5); The vehicle controller (34) (detection device of the EV) determines if the trailer connector (116) is detected. If the trailer connector (116) is detected, then that confirms that a trailer/PES (portal energy supplier) is connected to the vehicle (10). Therefore, establishing that a connection between the EV and the trailer/PES.
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application with a reasonable expectation of success, would have been motivated to modify the disclosure of Salter with the teachings of Alarcon, to accurately detect when a trailer is connected or not to ensure a connection is made.
Salter teaches assessing, by the navigation system, charging stations along potential routes for the specified destination that are suitable for recharging the EV in a state that the trailer is connected to the EV; and ([0037], [0042] Fig. 9) The GPS system (74) (navigation system) evaluates vehicle routes and determines charging stations that lie within an acceptable distance (suitable) along the vehicle routes that are being evaluated/assessed to recharge the EV (10) [0037]. The GPS system (74) will do this for the EV (10) while it has trailers (14 – 15) connected ([0042] Fig. 9).
Salter does not explicitly teach determining candidate routes for the planned trip by the navigation system based on the specified destination and the suitable charging stations.
However, Hanchett in the same field of endeavor, teaches determining candidate
routes for the planned trip by the navigation system based on the specified destination and the suitable charging stations ([0018] – [0019] Fig. 4). Hanchett teaches determining candidate routes for a planned trip based on a specified destination and charging stations. Hanchett teaches a system that uses map data to identify potential routes between a starting location and a destination. The map data includes locations of charging stations along the potential routes. Figure 4 shows the map data along with recharging stations upon each route. The system further evaluates the identified routes and selects a route based on the locations of the charging stations and the range of the electric vehicle.
displaying the suitable charging stations on the candidate routes via the navigation system [0031], [0062], [0072]. Hanchett teaches a display (118) which is apart of the navigation system [0031]. The display will inform the user to stop at the next recharging station to charge the battery of the electric vehicle (110). This inform action will happen when charging is needed [0062], [0072]. Therefore, Hanchett teaches displaying suitable charging stations for the user to charge the electric vehicle (110).
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application with a reasonable expectation of success, would have been motivated to modify the disclosure of Salter with the teachings of Hanchett, to further prevent the electric vehicle from running out of battery along longer routes and to prevent a person from getting stranded.
15. Regarding claims 3 & 9, Salter discloses the method of claim 1, further including:
wirelessly communicating, by a communication system of the EV, charging information indicating that a charging station is a suitable charging station after a successful charging process at the charging station with the connected trailer ([0022], [0034] Fig. 3 – 9). Salter teaches wirelessly communicating a vehicle controller (55) (EV) with a cloud network (58) involving an EV (10) that is hitched together with trailers (14 – 15). Salter is directed towards driver assistance for recharging multiple battery units (11, 16 – 17) of an EV and an attached trailer and describes determining charging characteristics and conditions associated with charging operations and communicating such information for future charging decisions. Due to the system evaluating charging performance and charging conditions for the combined vehicle/trailer configuration and uses that information to support subsequent charging operations. One of ordinary skill would understand that following a completed charging process, charging information reflecting the effectiveness or suitability of the charging location for the specific vehicle/trailer combination is generated and communicated via onboard communication systems. Such communicated information indicates that the charging station is suitable for charging the EV while towing the trailer because if it weren’t suitable, then the charging of the EV wouldn’t happen.
16. Regarding claim 13, Salter teaches an electric vehicle with the system of the claim 7 ([0018] Fig. 1). Salter teaches an electrified vehicle (10).
17. Regarding claim 14, Salter discloses a non-transitory computer readable storage medium on which a program for performing the method of claim 1 is recorded [0036]. Salter teaches a configuration memory (74).
Regarding claim 15, Salter does not explicitly teach further comprising indicating the suitable charging stations via the navigation system.
However, Hanchett in the same field of endeavor, teaches further comprising indicating the suitable charging stations via the navigation system [0043]. Hanchett teaches “…the processing circuit 210 identifies a respective location of one or more charging stations (e.g., R420, R422, R424, R426, R428, R430, R460, R462) along the one or more routes”. The processing circuit (210) is a part of the navigation system.
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application with a reasonable expectation of success, would have been motivated to modify the disclosure of Salter with the teachings of Hanchett, to identify charging stations so that the electric vehicle has enough range during the route to traverse without running out of charge during the route.
Regarding claim 16, Salter does not explicitly teach wherein the navigation system is further configured to indicate the suitable charging stations.
However, Hanchett in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the navigation system is further configured to indicate the suitable charging stations [0043]. Hanchett teaches “…the processing circuit 210 identifies a respective location of one or more charging stations (e.g., R420, R422, R424, R426, R428, R430, R460, R462) along the one or more routes”. The processing circuit (210) is a part of the navigation system.
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application with a reasonable expectation of success, would have been motivated to modify the disclosure of Salter with the teachings of Hanchett, to identify charging stations so that the electric vehicle has enough range during the route to traverse without running out of charge during the route.
Claim(s) 2 & 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20230108029A1 (hereinafter, “Salter”), and further in view of US20220260378A1 (hereinafter, “Hanchett”), and further in view of US20250108716A1 (hereinafter, “Alarcon”), and further in view of US20230219440A1 (hereinafter, “Forsythe”).
21. Regarding claims 2 & 8, Salter teaches wherein a charging station is considered suitable in response that the EV fits onto a charging slot of the charging station together with the trailer in a state that the trailer is connected to the EV, among the charging stations ([0028], [0032] Fig. 3 – 7). Figures 3 – 7 show the EV (10) with the trailer (14) attached fitting into a multitude of different layouts of charging stations (27). Salter shows different types of charging stations that will accommodate (suitable) for the size of the EV (10) that is connected with a trailer (14). These charging stations are selected remotely or manually inputted by using a user interface [0028], [0032]. Therefore, Salter can find a suitable charging station (charging slot) for an EV (10) that has a trailer (14) connected. Once that charging station has been found, that charging station would be considered suitable since the EV (10) would be able to comfortably fit and charge.
The modified Salter reference does not explicitly teach the method of claim 1,
wherein the navigation system is configured to consider at least one of trailer configuration data characterizing a size of the trailer,…
However, Forsythe teaches the method of claim 1,
wherein the navigation system is configured to consider at least one of trailer configuration data characterizing a size of the trailer,… ([0060] Fig. 6B) Forsythe teaches determining whether sufficient space exists to accommodate a charging trailer (20) coupled to a EV (10) [0044]. The charging trailer (20) may be maneuvered and positioned relative to a charging station (50) and determine an optimal location and orientation for the charging trailer in proximity to the charging station (50). The step (128) in figure 6B requires evaluating the spatial requirements of the charging trailer relative to the available area at the charging station (50), thereby determining whether the combined vehicle and trailer configuration can be accommodated within the available charging space.
Salter and Forsythe are analogous art because Salter teaches accommodating an EV that has a trailer attached to an appropriate charging station that can fit the total size of the EV with the trailer attached while Forsythe teaches determining the size of a vehicle and trailer and incorporating that vehicle and trailer size to accommodate a charging station area. One of ordinary skill would have the motivation to combine Salter with Forsythe because both address complementary aspects of the same problem, namely enabling an EV towing a trailer to reliably identify appropriate charging opportunities along a route. A person of ordinary skill would have recognized that these teachings naturally complement one another. Combining these references would filter candidate stations based on both reachability and physical compatibility, yielding a navigation system that directs a towing EV to charging stations that it can both reach and utilize.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Forsythe, to modify the teachings of Salter to include the teachings of Forsythe because this would accurately provide the EV a safe and compatible charging station to ensure the EV isn’t routed to a charging station that doesn’t work physically or distance wise.
Claim(s) 4 – 5, 10 – 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20230108029A1 (hereinafter, “Salter”), and further in view of US20250108716A1 (hereinafter, “Alarcon”), and further in view of US20220260378A1 (hereinafter, “Hanchett”), and further in view of US20220371465A1 (hereinafter, “Lowenthal”).
Regarding claims 4 & 10, Salter teaches …with the connected trailer [0022]. A vehicle (10) connected with trailers (14 – 15).
The modified Salter reference does not explicitly teach the method of claim 1, further including: wirelessly communicating to a server, by a communication system of the EV, charging information indicating that a charging station is a suitable charging station after a successful charging process at the charging station with the connected trailer.
However, Lowenthal in the same field of endeavor, teaches the method of
claim 1, further including: wirelessly communicating to a server, by a communication system of the EV, charging information indicating that a charging station is a suitable charging station after a successful charging process at the charging station… [0022], [0027], [0038] The communication device (150) can be coupled to the EV (110). Due to this coupling, this communication device (150) now acts like a communication system for the EV (110). This communication device can wirelessly communicate via WLAN or WPAN which are wireless forms of communicate to a charging station (120) which then is also wirelessly communicated with a server (180) [0022], [0027]. Lowenthal also mentions monitoring the charging status of the EV (110). This implies that Lowenthal shows when the vehicle is being charged and when the vehicle is fully charged. If the charging status is being monitored and being displayed by the display unit (340) [0038], then that charging status should also indicate when the EV (110) is fully charged. The indication of the EV (110) being fully charged constitutes as charging information indicating that after a successful charge, that charging station was suitable for the EV to be plugged into and charged up to max battery. Salter teaches having an EV connected to a trailer Salter and Lowenthal are analogous art because Salter teaches having a vehicle connected with a trailer while Lowenthal teaches a communication device that couples with a vehicle that can communicate with a charging station. One of ordinary skill would have the motivation to combine Salter with Lowenthal in order to enable effective coordination between the vehicle, trailer, and the charging station. It would have been obvious to incorporate the wireless communication of Lowenthal into Salter to allow the vehicle to communicate with charging stations to obtain charging availability, transmit charging information, and coordinate charging sessions for both the vehicle and attached trailer.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Forsythe, to modify the teachings of the modified Salter reference to include the teachings of Forsythe to improve charging coordination.
24. Regarding claims 5 & 11, Salter discloses the method of claim 4, wherein the charging information includes at least one of trailer configuration data characterizing a size of the trailer, and charging station configuration data specifying available parking space at the charging stations ([0031] – [0032], [0043] Fig. 3 – 7). The broadest reasonable interpretation of this claim is charging information being charging related information that is associated with a successful charging event for an EV towing a trailer. Salter explains that trailer configuration data characterizes physical attributes of the trailer (14 – 15) and the EV (10). Such size related characteristics are the length of both the EV (10) and the attached trailer (size of trailer). Such data may be obtained by data stored on the EV (10) or obtained remotely when assessing suitable charging stations. Due to the system generating and communicating charging information associated with charging operations involving the EV/trailer combination and describes trailer (14 – 15) configuration data characterizing trailer (14 – 15) length as part of the information used to determine station suitability, one of ordinary skill would recognize that the communicated charging information includes at least trailer (14 – 15) configuration data characterizing the length of the trailer (14 – 15).
Claim(s) 6 & 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20230108029A1 (hereinafter, “Salter”), and further in view of US20250108716A1 (hereinafter, “Alarcon”), and further in view of US20220260378A1 (hereinafter, “Hanchett”), and further in view of US20220332210A1 (hereinafter, “Goei”).
26. Regarding claims 6 & 12, Salter does not explicitly teach the method of claim 1, further including: transmitting information on the suitable charging stations to a server to share the information with a fleet of electric vehicles via the server.
However, Goei in the same field of endeavor, teaches the method of claim 1, further including: transmitting information on the suitable charging stations to a sever to share the information with a fleet of electric vehicles via the server [0064] – [0067]. Goei teaches a electric vehicle charging server (804) that communicates with EVs that stores and distributes charging related data or reservations. The server (804) is further arranged to communicate with multiple EVs and charging stations (806), determining availability, and advising vehicles based on collected charging data. Therefore, such charging related information, once it is collected from the EVs, may include information indicating which charging stations are available (suitable) and that this information is transmitted to the electric vehicle charging server (804) and distributed (shared) to multiple EVs within the system.
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application with a reasonable expectation of success, would have been motivated to modify the disclosure of Salter with the teachings of Geoi, to have a network that has all EVs in communication with each other to relay important information to specific EVs and also prevent other EVs from being sent to the same charging station.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID MESQUITI OVALLE JR. whose telephone number is (571)272-6229. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30am - 5pm EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Erin Piateski can be reached on (571) 270-7429. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
/DAVID MESQUITI OVALLE/ Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/Erin M Piateski/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights