DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
YThe present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
This is a first office action for application Serial No. 18/955,498 filed on 11/21/2024. Claims 21-40 have been examined.
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 21-40 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 21 recites: "A computer system configured to manage charging of electric vehicles, the computer system comprising at least one processor configured to:
determine a plurality of residential locations that include electric vehicle charging capabilities;
determine charging availability data for the plurality of residential locations, wherein the charging availability data for a residential location of the plurality of residential locations includes occupancy data indicating when a person associated with the residential location will be occupying the residential location;
schedule charging of an electric vehicle at the residential location based at least in part upon the occupancy data for the residential location; and
cause a notification associated with the scheduled charging of the electric vehicle at the residential location to be transmitted to an electronic device associated with an operator of the electric vehicle."
This language is vague and indefinite for at least the following reasons:
Intended Use: The claim contains the following language that is vague and indefinite as it is unclear whether the scope of this language is intended to affirmatively require specific performance or whether this language is deliberately articulated as an expression of intended use:
“charging availability data for the plurality of residential locations”
“charging availability data for a residential location”
“for the residential location”
Accordingly, this language does not serve to patentably distinguish the claimed structure over that of the reference. See In re Pearson, 181 USPQ 641; In re Yanush, 177 USPQ 705; In re Finsterwalder, 168 USPQ 530; In re Casey, 512 USPQ 235; In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458; Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ 2nd 1647.
Antecedent Basis: The following term(s) lack(s) proper antecedent basis:
“the residential location”
Although the following language does not necessarily cure the issues discussed above, for purposes of examination under 35 USC 102 and 103, Examiner will interpret this language as reading:
"A computer system configured to manage charging of electric vehicles, the computer system comprising at least one processor configured to:
determine a plurality of residential locations that include electric vehicle charging capabilities;
determine charging availability data of the plurality of residential locations, wherein the charging availability data of a first residential location of the plurality of residential locations includes occupancy data indicating when a person associated with the first residential location will be occupying the first residential location;
schedule charging of an electric vehicle at the first residential location based at least in part upon the occupancy data of the first residential location; and
cause a notification associated with the scheduled charging of the electric vehicle at the first residential location to be transmitted to an electronic device associated with an operator of the electric vehicle."
Claims 22-29 are further rejected as depending on this claim.
Claim 22 recites: "The computer system of Claim 21, wherein the residential location comprises at least one of an apartment complex, a condominium complex, or a house."
This language is also rejected as vague and indefinite for the same reasons discussed in the rejection of claim 21 above.
Although the following language does not necessarily cure the issues discussed above, for purposes of examination under 35 USC 102 and 103, Examiner will interpret this language as reading:
"The computer system of Claim 21, wherein the first residential location comprises at least one of an apartment complex, a condominium complex, or a house."
Claim 26 recites: "The computer system of Claim 25, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to:
determine that the electric vehicle has a SOC remaining to travel from a current location of the electric vehicle to the residential location; and
schedule the charging of the electric vehicle further based at least in part upon the determination that the electric vehicle has the SOC remaining to travel from the current location of the electric vehicle to the residential location."
This language is also rejected as vague and indefinite for the same reasons discussed in the rejection of claim 21 above.
Although the following language does not necessarily cure the issues discussed above, for purposes of examination under 35 USC 102 and 103, Examiner will interpret this language as reading:
"The computer system of Claim 25, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to:
determine that the electric vehicle has a SOC remaining to travel from a current location of the electric vehicle to the first residential location; and
schedule the charging of the electric vehicle further based at least in part upon the determination that the electric vehicle has the SOC remaining to travel from the current location of the electric vehicle to the first residential location."
Claim 28 recites: "The computer system of Claim 21, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to schedule the charging of the electric vehicle further based at least in part upon at least one of charging equipment at the residential location, a neighborhood associated with the residential location, one or more reviews associated with charging electric vehicles at the residential location, frequency of electric vehicle charging at the residential location, or accessibility of the residential location."
This language is also rejected as vague and indefinite for the same reasons discussed in the rejection of claim 21 above.
Although the following language does not necessarily cure the issues discussed above, for purposes of examination under 35 USC 102 and 103, Examiner will interpret this language as reading:
"The computer system of Claim 21, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to schedule the charging of the electric vehicle further based at least in part upon at least one of charging equipment at the first residential location, a neighborhood associated with the first residential location, one or more reviews associated with charging electric vehicles at the first residential location, frequency of electric vehicle charging at the residential location, or accessibility of the first residential location."
Claim 29 is further rejected as depending on this claim.
Claim 29 recites: "The computer system of Claim 28, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to determine the accessibility of the residential location based at least in part upon a route of the electric vehicle and a location of the residential location."
This language is also rejected as vague and indefinite for the same reasons discussed in the rejection of claim 21 above.
Although the following language does not necessarily cure the issues discussed above, for purposes of examination under 35 USC 102 and 103, Examiner will interpret this language as reading:
"The computer system of Claim 28, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to determine the accessibility of the first residential location based at least in part upon a route of the electric vehicle and a location of the first residential location."
Claims 30-39 recite substantially similar subject matter as claim 21, but in non-transitory computer readable medium and computer-implemented method form. These claims are similarly rejected and interpreted using the same rationale as discussed in the rejection of claim 21 above.
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 21-40 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. Claims 21-40 are directed to the abstract idea of an idea of itself and/or certain methods of organizing human activities as explained in detail below. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional computer elements, which are recited at a high level of generality, provide conventional computer functions that do not add meaningful limits to practicing the abstract idea. Independent claims 21, 30, and 39 recite a computer system for managing charging of electric vehicles (and corresponding non-transitory computer readable storage medium and computer implemented method) comprising memory and processors performing operations including, determining residential locations that include charging capabilities, determining charging availability including occupancy information, scheduling a charging session, and notifying an operator of a vehicle of the charging schedule. These steps relate to an idea of itself and/or certain methods of organizing human activities which corresponds to concepts identified as abstract ideas by the courts such as “collecting information (e.g. determining residential locations with charging capabilities), analyzing it (e.g. determining charging availability and occupancy information and scheduling a charging session), and “displaying certain results of the collection and analysis (e.g. notifying an operator of the charging schedule)," as described in Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstrom S.A. 830 F. 3d 1350. As such, the description in claims 1-20 of collecting, analyzing, and displaying information is an abstract idea (Note: The fact that the recited claims does not expressly display information is not determinative to whether the claims are directed to an abstract idea. Rather, the abstract idea is identified in the step of analyzing information. If the claim as a whole, is limited to, “collecting, analyzing, and displaying information,” without “significantly more” the claim is an abstract idea as held by the Federal Circuit in Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstrom S.A. 830 F. 3d 1350).
Moreover, the specification does not provide any particulars of the claim elements that would alter the claims from being interpreted as directed to an abstraction of “collecting information (e.g. determining residential locations with charging capabilities), analyzing it (e.g. determining charging availability and occupancy information and scheduling a charging session), and “displaying certain results of the collection and analysis (e.g. notifying an operator of the charging schedule)." As such, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claims and their dependent claims recite the additional limitations of a processor and non-transitory computer-readable storage medium. These claim elements, however, are recited at such a high level of generality and is recited as performing generic computer functions routinely used in computer applications. Generic computer components recited as performing generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities amount to no more than implementing the abstract idea with a computerized system. See also e.g. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (explaining that generic computer components such as a communications network, including an email server, telephone network, telephone unit and general purpose computers performing generic computer functions do not satisfy the inventive concept requirement, but is merely routine and conventional and that implementation of the abstract idea does not improve the functioning of the computer itself). See also e.g. at least Alice Corp v. CLS Bank, 134 S.Ct. 2347, 2359 (describing that the use of a computer to obtain data, adjust account balances, and issue automated instructions, is well understood, routine and conventional).
The use of generic computer components to store, process and transmit information through an unspecified interface does not impose any meaningful limit on the computer implementation of the abstract idea. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of the recited elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
Claims 22-29, 31-38 and 40 are dependent on claims 21, 30, and 39 and elaborate on the same abstract idea of the independent claims without adding significantly more to the abstract idea. Therefore, claims 22-29, 31-38 and 40 recite the same abstract idea of “collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis.”
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.
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.
Claims 21-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akhtar (US 2020/0333151 A1) in view of Logvinov (US 2020/0023747 A1).
Regarding claims 21, 30, and 39, Akhtar discloses a computer system configured to manage charging of electric vehicles, the computer system comprising at least one processor configured to (and corresponding at least one non-transitory computer-readable storage medium with instructions stored thereon and computer-implemented method for managing charging of electric vehicles, wherein the instructions and computer-implemented method, when executed/implemented by at least one processor in communication with at least one memory, cause the at least one processor to) (see e.g. at least Abstract, Fig. 1-3, and related text):
determine a plurality of residential locations that include electric vehicle charging capabilities (see e.g. at least Abstract, ¶ 13, 17-20, cl. 1, Fig. 1-2, and related text, finding locations of available charging units, wherein the charging units include residential chargers);
determine charging availability data of the plurality of residential locations, wherein the charging availability data of a first residential location of the plurality of residential locations includes data associated with the first residential location (see e.g. at least Abstract, ¶ 13, 17-20, 23, cl. 1, Fig. 1-2, and related text, determining availability of potential charging locations and routing the electric vehicle to a nearest/selected charging unit in order to minimize wait and optimize system resources);
schedule charging of an electric vehicle at the first residential location based at least in part upon the occupancy data of the first residential location (see e.g. at least Abstract, ¶ 13, 17-20, 23, 29, cl. 1-2, Fig. 1-2, and related text, dynamically scheduling EV charging); and
cause a notification associated with the scheduled charging of the electric vehicle at the first residential location to be transmitted to an electronic device associated with an operator of the electric vehicle (see e.g. at least ¶ 23, Fig. 2, and related text).
Additionally, Logvinov teaches limitations not expressly disclosed by Akhtar including namely: [that charging availability data of a first residential location of a plurality of residential locations includes] occupancy data indicating when a person [associated with the first residential location] will be occupying the first residential location (see e.g. at least ¶ 96, obtaining energy and power (EP) information, including whether anyone is at the house or intends to be away for the weekend and/or are otherwise not likely to use the charging system in the near future).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teaching of Akhtar by configuring [that the charging availability data of a first residential location of the plurality of residential locations includes] occupancy data indicating when a person [associated with the first residential location] will be occupying the first residential location as taught by Logvinov in order to allow for charging of an electric vehicle via a microgrid and allow a home charging owner to ret out charging (Logvinov: ¶ 123).
Regarding claim 22, Modified Akhtar teaches that the first residential location comprises at least one of an apartment complex, a condominium complex, or a house (Akhtar: see e.g. at least cl. 1; Logvinov: see e.g. at least ¶ 79).
Regarding claim 23, Modified Akhtar teaches that the electronic device comprises at least one of the electric vehicle or a computing device associated with the operator of the electric vehicle (Akhtar: see e.g. at least Abstract, ¶ 4-6, Fig. 2-3, and related text; Logvinov: see e.g. at least Abstract, ¶ 7, Fig. 1, and related text).
Regarding claim 24, Modified Akhtar teaches that the at least one processor is further configured to:
determine telematics data associated with the electric vehicle (Akhtar: see e.g. at least Abstract, ¶ 19-20, 27-30, Fig. 2, and related text; Logvinov: see e.g. at least Abstract, ¶ 75, Fig. 3, and related text); and
schedule the charging of the electric vehicle further based at least in part upon the telematics data (Akhtar: see e.g. at least ¶ 29-30, Fig. 2, and related text; Logvinov: see e.g. at least ¶ 78, Fig. 3, and related text).
Regarding claim 25, Modified Akhtar teaches that the telematics data comprises at least one of acceleration data, braking data, cornering data, speed data, direction data, route data, global positioning system (GPS) data, or state of charge (SOC) data (Akhtar: see e.g. at least Abstract, ¶ 27-29, Fig. 2, and related text; Logvinov: see e.g. at least Abstract, ¶ 17).
Regarding claim 26, Modified Akhtar teaches that the at least one processor is further configured to:
determine that the electric vehicle has a SOC remaining to travel from a current location of the electric vehicle to the first residential location (Akhtar: see e.g. at least Abstract, ¶ 23, Fig. 2, and related text; Logvinov: see e.g. at least Abstract, ¶ 17, 95, Fig. 3, 5, and related text); and
schedule the charging of the electric vehicle further based at least in part upon the determination that the electric vehicle has the SOC remaining to travel from the current location of the electric vehicle to the first residential location (id.).
Regarding claim 27, Modified Akhtar teaches that the at least one processor is further configured to receive at least part of the telematics data from at least one of the electric vehicle or a computing device associated with the operator of the electric vehicle (Akhtar: see e.g. at least Abstract, ¶ 19-20, 27-30, Fig. 2, and related text; Logvinov: see e.g. at least Abstract, ¶ 75, Fig. 3, and related text).
Regarding claim 28, Modified Akhtar teaches that the at least one processor is further configured to schedule the charging of the electric vehicle further based at least in part upon at least one of charging equipment at the first residential location, a neighborhood associated with the first residential location, one or more reviews associated with charging electric vehicles at the first residential location, frequency of electric vehicle charging at the residential location, or accessibility of the first residential location (Akhtar: see e.g. at least Abstract, ¶ 13, 19-20, 23, 27-30, Fig. 1-2, and related text; Logvinov: see e.g. at least Abstract, ¶ 79, 84, Fig. 3, and related text).
Regarding claim 29, Modified Akhtar teaches that the at least one processor is further configured to determine the accessibility of the first residential location based at least in part upon a route of the electric vehicle and a location of the first residential location (Akhtar: see e.g. at least Abstract, ¶ 13, 19-20, 23, 27-30, Fig. 1-2, and related text; Logvinov: see e.g. at least Abstract, ¶ 27, 85, 95, Fig. 3, and related text).
Claims 30-39 recite substantially similar subject matter as claim 21-29 (and claim 40 recites substantially similar subject matter as claims 24-25), but in non-transitory computer readable medium and computer-implemented method form. These claims are similarly rejected for the same reasons as discussed in the rejection of claims 21-29 above, and claim 40 is rejected for the same reasons as discussed in the rejection of claims 24-25 above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHARLES J HAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3980. The examiner can normally be reached on M-Th and every other F (7:30 AM - 5 PM).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Christian Chace can be reached on 571-272-4190. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CHARLES J HAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662