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 .
Priority
The applicant’s claim to priority KR1020230176536 on 12/07/2023 is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/21/2024 complies with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“a connection setup unit configured to ...” in claim 8
“a charging station information storage unit configured to ...” in claim 8
“a charging station information transmission unit configured to ...” in claim 8
The connection setup unit, charging station information storage unit and charging station information transmission unit is described in paragraph 108 of the Specification as being in the form of a software module which runs within the server.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-3 and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to an abstract idea without significantly more
Step 1 of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test entails considering whether the claimed subject matter falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C. 101: Process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 12-14 are directed to an apparatus and a method. Therefore, claim(s) 1-3 and 12-14 are within at least one of the four statutory categories, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.
If the claims recite at least one statutory category of invention, the claims require further analysis in Step 2A. Step 2A of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test is a two-prong inquiry. In Prong One, examiners evaluate whether the claims recite a judicial exception of invention.
Claim(s) 1 and 12 recite the following (bolded) abstract limitations (or limitations analogous to):
“A driving information display apparatus comprising:
a processor configured to perform control to receive driving guidance information and location information of an electric vehicle and output a guidance screen corresponding to the driving guidance information; and
a storage unit configured to store road information and an algorithm run by the processor;
wherein the processor is configured to perform control to, in response that a charging station is included in a destination or passage point of the electric vehicle:
check whether the electric vehicle has arrived at the charging station included in the destination or passage point; and
determine whether a charging station image output condition is satisfied, and output a charging station image of the arrived charging station in response that the charging station image output condition is satisfied.”
These limitations, as drafted, are a process, that under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind, or by a human using pen and paper, and therefore recite mental processes. For example, a human in the mind, checking whether a vehicle has arrived at a charging station based on sight or images. Thus, the claims recite an abstract idea.
If the claims recite a judicial exception in step 2A Prong One, the claims require further analysis in step 2A Prong Two. In step 2A Prong Two, examiners evaluate whether the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application
Claim(s) 1 and 12 recite the following (underlined) additional limitations (or limitations analogous to):
“A driving information display apparatus comprising:
a processor configured to perform control to receive driving guidance information and location information of an electric vehicle and output a guidance screen corresponding to the driving guidance information; and
a storage unit configured to store road information and an algorithm run by the processor;
wherein the processor is configured to perform control to, in response that a charging station is included in a destination or passage point of the electric vehicle:
check whether the electric vehicle has arrived at the charging station included in the destination or passage point; and
determine whether a charging station image output condition is satisfied, and output a charging station image of the arrived charging station in response that the charging station image output condition is satisfied.”
The claimed limitations recite the additional elements of a driving information display apparatus, a processor, a storage unit, and outputting an image. In regards to the apparatus, processor, and storage unite, the functions of these additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. In regards to receiving, by the process, recites insignificant extra-solution activity, mere data gathering in this case. In regards to outputting, by the processor, recites insignificant extra-solution activity, mere data output in this case.
If the additional elements do not integrate the exception into a practical application in step 2A Prong Two, then the claims are directed to the recited judicial exception, and require further analysis under Step 2B to determine whether they provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself).
With respect to claims 1 and 12, an apparatus, processor, and storage unit, are recited at such a high level of generality that it amounts to no more than additional elements of instructions to apply an exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). In regards to receiving, the claim recites insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data gathering and does not add meaningful limitation to the determination process. See Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), which indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). Regarding outputting, the claim recites insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data output and does not add a meaningful limitation to the determination process. See Ameranth, 842 F.3d at 1241-42, 120 USPQ2d at 1854-55. Trading Techs. Int’l v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019), and Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2017) which indicates that the mere displaying of data is a well understood, routine, and conventional function.
The various metrics/limitations of claims 2-3 and 13-14, merely narrow the previously recited abstract idea limitations (e.g. further characterizing the determination step). These claims also act to further characterize the types of output conditions (aforementioned abstract idea) and merely narrowing an abstract idea still results in an abstract idea. For the reasons described above, with respect to claims 1 and 12, this judicial exception is not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than the abstract idea.
Thus, even when viewed as an ordered combination, nothing in the claims add significantly more (i.e. an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. Therefore, claim(s) 1-3 and 12-14 are ineligible under 35 USC § 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-10, and 12-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kimura (20200126322).
Regarding claim 1, Kimura teaches a driving information display apparatus comprising (Kimura: Abstract):
a processor configured to perform control to receive driving guidance information and location information of an electric vehicle and output a guidance screen corresponding to the driving guidance information (Kimura: “the vehicle 130 can measure the state in the vehicle by various sensors in the vehicle and transmit collected data to an information processing server 110” ¶ 28, “The information processing server 110 provides the estimated position of the charging station to the vehicle 130 or the communication apparatus 140 such that the estimated position of the charging station is reflected on map information” ¶ 29); and
a storage unit configured to store road information and an algorithm run by the processor (Kimura: “The control unit 202 includes a CPU 210 that is a center processing unit, and a RAM 211. The control unit 202 loads a program stored in a storage unit 204 into the RAM 211 and executes it” ¶ 39);
wherein the processor is configured to perform control to, in response that a charging station is included in a destination or passage point of the electric vehicle (Kimura: “the information processing server 110 can also confirm the information of the estimated position of the charging station based on information concerning the charging station transmitted from the vehicle 130 or the communication apparatus 140” ¶ 30):
check whether the electric vehicle has arrived at the charging station included in the destination or passage point (Kimura: “The communication apparatus 140 provides information to the information processing server 110 to confirm the existence or position of a charging station estimated in the information processing server 110” ¶ 34); and
determine whether a charging station image output condition is satisfied, and output a charging station image of the arrived charging station in response that the charging station image output condition is satisfied (Kimura: “the communication apparatus 140, for example, answers whether the charging station actually exists at the estimated position of the charging station. In addition, the communication apparatus 140 can transmit, to the information processing server 110, a photo of a charger in the charging station or information concerning the characteristic of the charger (these pieces of information will simply be referred to as additional information). Note that some pieces of additional information can also be transmitted by the vehicle 130” ¶ 34).
Regarding claim 2, Kimura teaches the driving information display apparatus of claim 1, wherein the charging station image output condition is satisfied when a number of times a driver of the electric vehicle has visited the charging station in a past is less than a predetermined reference number (Kimura: “the confirmation unit 214 determines, based on the response to the information for promoting confirmation, whether the existence of a charging station can be confirmed” ¶ 77, “the position of the charging station is stored in a charging station database. At this time, the information of the position of the charging station may be registered only when the received information of the position of the charging station is not included in the charging station database” ¶ 82, Note: Image output condition is satisfied when the charging station has been visited less than a predetermined reference number (less than 1 in this case).).
Regarding claim 3, Kimura teaches the driving information display apparatus of claim 1, wherein the charging station image output condition is satisfied when a time spanning from a point in time that the electric vehicle arrives at the charging station to a point in time that a parking completion signal is received exceeds a predetermined reference time (Kimura: “the estimation unit 213 of the control unit 202 estimates the position of a charging station based on information concerning vehicles received from a plurality of vehicles in accordance with the reception of the information associated with the vehicle or at a predetermined interval ... the estimation unit uses the position information of a vehicle, information concerning the stop time of the vehicle ... if the vehicle is stopping at a certain position for a predetermined time or more, and it is determined that the charging state of the vehicle is “charging in progress”, it is estimated that the vehicle is stopping in a certain place and being charged” ¶ 66).
Regarding claim 4, Kimura teaches the driving information display apparatus of claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to perform control to:
capture an image with a camera attached to the electric vehicle in response that the electric vehicle arrives at the charging station and a charging port of the electric vehicle is opened (Kimura: “The information also includes information for requesting providing of a photo of the charger in the charging station or information concerning the characteristic of the charger (that is, additional information). The confirmation unit 702 may receive the photo of the charger from the communication apparatus 140” ¶ 99, “The confirmation unit 702 may display the information for promoting confirmation when the vehicle is under charging” ¶100, see also ¶ 91, 114); and
transmit the captured image, together with information for identifying the arrived charging station, to a driving information management server (Kimura: “the confirmation unit 702 may transmit the information for promoting confirmation to the communication apparatus 140 associated with the vehicle 130” ¶ 99).
Regarding claim 6, Kimura teaches the driving information display apparatus of claim 4, wherein the processor is further configured to perform control to transmit charging station information including at least one of success or failure of charging, charging speed, and charging time, together with the captured image, to the driving information management server (Kimura: “the confirmation unit 214 transmits information for promoting confirmation to the vehicle 130 or the communication apparatus 140 associated with the vehicle 130 to confirm the existence or position of an estimated charging station ... The information concerning the characteristic of the charger includes information representing a charging method (for example, CHAdemo) supported by the charger, whether quick charging is possible, how many vehicles can be charged simultaneously, and what kind of paying method the charger supports” ¶ 74).
Regarding claim 7, Kimura teaches the driving information display apparatus of claim 4, wherein the processor is further configured to perform control to:
transmit information for identifying the arrived charging station to the driving information management server (Kimura: “An information processing server 110 can receive information concerning a vehicle and provide the information of the estimated position of a charging station to the vehicle” ¶ 80); and
receive a charging station image of the arrived charging station from the driving information management server, and output the charging station image (Kimura: “the vehicle information providing unit 312 of the control unit 304 provides the information of the position of the charging station to the information processing server 110 such that the information of the position of the charging station is reflected on the map information. Additionally, in step S806, the control unit 304 displays the information of the position of the charging station on the display unit 308 in accordance with the current position” ¶ 95);
wherein the charging station image is an image which is selected from images, captured and transmitted by a plurality of electric vehicles, by the driving information management server (Kimura: “The information processing server 110 can also receive the information of the estimated position of a charging station from a certain vehicle and provide the information of the position of the charging station to another vehicle” ¶ 80, see also ¶ 99).
Regarding claim 8, Kimura teaches a driving information management server provided with a central processing unit and memory, the driving information management server comprising (Kimura: “The information processing server 110 is formed by one or more server apparatuses” ¶ 30):
a connection setup unit configured to set up connections to exchange information with driving information display apparatuses of a plurality of electric vehicles (Kimura: “The information processing server 110 is formed by one or more server apparatuses, acquires information concerning the vehicle transmitted from the vehicle 130 or the communication apparatus 140 via a network 111” ¶ 30);
a charging station information storage unit configured to store information for identifying charging stations and charging station images received from the driving information display apparatuses of the plurality of electric vehicles over the set-up connections (Kimura: “The communication apparatus 140 provides information to the information processing server 110 to confirm the existence or position of a charging station ... the communication apparatus 140 can transmit, to the information processing server 110, a photo of a charger in the charging station or information concerning the characteristic of the charger” ¶ 34); and
a charging station information transmission unit configured to select an image from the stored charging station images based on information for identification of a charging station received from the driving information display apparatus of any one of the plurality of electric vehicles, and transmit the selected charging station image to the driving information display apparatus which transmitted the information for identification of the charging station (Kimura: “the communication apparatus 140 acquires the information of the position of the charging station from the information processing server 110, and uses the information of the position of the charging station together with the map information used in the communication apparatus 140. The communication apparatus 140 can also display, for example, the display 150 and display information representing the existence of charging stations on the map” ¶ 35).
Regarding claim 9, Kimura teaches the driving information management server of claim 8, wherein the charging station information storage unit receives charging station information including at least one of success or failure of charging, charging speed, and charging time together with each of the charging station images captured by the plurality of electric vehicles, and stores the charging station information in association with the information for identification of the charging station (Kimura: “the storage unit 204 stores, in a charging station database, additional information and the like concerning a charging station transmitted from the vehicle 130” ¶ 41, “the confirmation unit 214 transmits information for promoting confirmation to the vehicle 130 or the communication apparatus 140 associated with the vehicle 130 to confirm the existence or position of an estimated charging station ... The information concerning the characteristic of the charger includes information representing a charging method (for example, CHAdemo) supported by the charger, whether quick charging is possible, how many vehicles can be charged simultaneously, and what kind of paying method the charger supports” ¶ 74).
Regarding claim 10, Kimura teaches the driving information management server of claim 9, wherein the charging station information transmission unit selects and transmits a charging station image, most recently captured in response that charging was successful, based on the stored charging station information (Kimura: “includes information for requesting providing of a photo of the charger in the charging station or information concerning the characteristic of the charger (that is, additional information). If a photo of the charger can be obtained, the existence of the charging station can be confirmed” ¶ 74, “The confirmation unit 214 may inquire of the vehicle about whether the vehicle that could estimate the position of the charging station is still under charging or stopping at the same position, and if the vehicle is under charging or stopping at the same position, transmit the information for promoting confirmation” ¶ 75).
Regarding claim 16, Kimura teaches a non-transitory computer-readable medium ... (Kimura: “A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium according to the above embodiment” ¶ 169)
In regards to the remainder of claim 16, the claimed limitations are analogous to previously rejected claim 1, and is therefore rejected under the same premise.
In regards to claim(s) 12-15, the claim(s) recite analogous limitations to claim(s) 1-4, and are therefore rejected under the same premise.
In regards to claim(s) 17-19, the claim(s) recite analogous limitations to claim(s) 8-10, and are therefore rejected under the same premise.
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.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kimura in view of Kikuchi et al. (20180248394; hereinafter Kikuchi).
Regarding claim 5, Kimura fails to teach the driving information display apparatus of claim 4, wherein the processor is further configured to perform control to:
select one camera from a plurality of cameras attached to the electric vehicle based on information related to a direction in which the charging port of the electric vehicle is placed; and
capture the image.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Kikuchi teaches the driving information display apparatus of claim 4, wherein the processor is further configured to perform control to:
select one camera from a plurality of cameras attached to the electric vehicle based on information related to a direction in which the charging port of the electric vehicle is placed (Kikuchi: “the imaging unit 40 is a camera including a fisheye lens and a wide-angle lens. The imaging unit 40 is provided toward the outside of the vehicle 100. The imaging unit 40 may include a plurality of cameras. In the present embodiment, four cameras are provided in total at the vehicle 100 on front, rear, left, and right sides of the vehicle 100” ¶ 34, “the image recognizer 13 of the charging support device 10 acquires the image captured by the imaging unit 40. Since the imaging unit 40 is provided toward the outside of the vehicle 100, the imaging unit 40 captures a surrounding image of the vehicle 100 ... The overhead view image is an image acquired by viewing the vehicle and the surrounding area of the vehicle from above the vehicle 100 in the direction of the vehicle 100 ... The overhead view image may use the images captured by the imaging units 40 attached to the front and rear sides of the vehicle 100. The reason is that the vehicle 100 is not able to move upwards even though the power transmission device 200 is present in a horizontal direction since the vehicle 100 moves forward or rearwards but does not move in the horizontal direction” ¶ 50); and
capture the image (Kikuchi: “The overhead view image may use the images captured by the imaging units 40 attached to the front and rear sides of the vehicle 100” ¶ 50).
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of effective filing and with a reasonable expectation for success, to have modified the imaging system of Kimura so that it also includes the element of selecting a camera, as taught by Kikuchi, in order to improve image selection (Kikuchi: ¶ 31).
Claim(s) 11 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kimura in view of Goto (20200267266).
Regarding claim 11, Kimura teaches the driving information management server of claim 10, wherein the charging station information storage unit analyzes the received charging station image and stores the charging station image only when the image includes the charging station (Kimura: “the communication apparatus 140 can transmit, to the information processing server 110, a photo of a charger in the charging station or information concerning the characteristic of the charger (these pieces of information will simply be referred to as additional information)” ¶ 34 “the storage unit 204 stores, in a charging station database, additional information and the like concerning a charging station transmitted from the vehicle 130 or the communication apparatus 140” ¶ 41, “the position of the charging station is stored in a charging station database. At this time, the information of the position of the charging station may be registered only when the received information of the position of the charging station is not included in the charging station database” ¶ 82) ...
However, Kimura fails to teach an image quality of the image is equal to or greater than a reference value.
In a similar field of endeavor, Goto teaches [storing an image] when an image quality of the image is equal to or greater than a reference value (Goto: “The communication parameter correction necessity determination unit 47 sets a reference value to determine whether communication quality is deteriorated 83 for the selected communication quality information” ¶ 152, “after the transmission and reception of the image data through the communication line is completed and the communication parameter storage unit 45 (an example of the second memory) for storing the communication parameter 71” ¶ 161).
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of effective filing and with a reasonable expectation for success, to have modified the imaging system of Kimura so that it also includes the element of image quality, as taught by Goto, in order to improve image storage (Goto: ¶ 163).
In regards to claim(s) 20, the claim(s) recite analogous limitations to claim(s) 11, and is therefore rejected under the same premise.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Jackson et al. (20180045533) is in the similar field of endeavor as the claimed invention of charging station verification.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CLINT V PHAM whose telephone number is (571)272-4543. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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, Abby Flynn can be reached at 571-272-9855. 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.
/C.P./Examiner, Art Unit 3663
/ABBY J FLYNN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3663