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 Application
This Office Action is in response to amendments and arguments received on March 19, 2026. Claims 1-20 have been amended. Claims 1-20 remain pending. This communication is the second Office Action on the Merits.
Key to Interpreting this Office Action
For readability, all claim language has been bolded. Citations from prior art are provided at the end of each limitation in parenthesis. Any further explanations that were deemed necessary the by Examiner are provided at the end of each claim limitation. The Applicant is encouraged to contact the Examiner directly if there are any questions or concerns regarding the current Office Action.
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 1-20 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 applicant regards as the invention.
In regards to claims 1, 8 and 15: Applicant claims
and in response to the criticality at the first location exceeding that of the second location, controlling the EV to autonomously navigate to the first location and provide energy to the first location,
Applicant first estimates and ranks future availability of two EVs, and selects the AV based on highest availability. Afterwards, Applicant claims controlling the EV, however it remains unclear which EV the Applicant is controlling. Corrective action or clarification is required.
Further in regards to claims 1, 8 and 15: Applicant has deleted therefore the subsequently claimed wherein the location of the EV is closer to the second location than the first location no longer has proper antecedent basis for the location of the EV. Corrective action or clarification is required.
All other dependent claims of the indefinite claims detailed above are also indefinite at least by virtue of depending on the indefinite claims detailed above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
Claims 1, 4-8, 11-15 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheung et al. (US 20210382501 A1) herein “Cheung”, in view of Singh et al. (US 20220085626 A1) herein “Singh” and Conroy et al. (US 20210272036 A1) herein “Conroy”.
In regards to Claim 1, as best understood, Cheung discloses the following:
1. A method, comprising:
determining an energy need for each location of a plurality of locations in an area, and a criticality of the energy need corresponding to each location of the plurality of locations; (see at least [0040] “The fleet management system 120 receives a power request 210 from a user via the user device 130”, “The user also provides information describing the amount of power needed.”, understood to be equivalent to criticality of the energy per Applicant disclosure [0043]. See also Cheung [0041] “The fleet management system 120 may balance various requests for power”, understood to be equivalent to the plurality of locations in an area.)
estimating a future availability of an electric vehicle (EV) and an additional EV to provide energy to the plurality of locations; (see at least [0045]-[0046] “another AEV” and [0085] “power source manager configured to determine an estimated amount of energy for servicing the request based at least in part on a duration associated with the request and data describing energy usage at the location, and select an AEV from a fleet of AEVs to fulfill the request, the AEV selected based on a current location of the AEV”)
Cheung is silent, but Singh teaches the following:
ranking the future availability based on traffic data associated with a first location of the plurality of locations and a second location of the plurality of locations; (see at least Fig. 9C, steps 938-946 and [0103] “application server 116 may rank the identified mobile charging systems 108 and 110 further based on the turn-around time associated with each identified mobile charging system 108… For example, the application server 116 may determine the cumulative sum of the time required by the mobile charging system 108 to travel from the first location (i.e., a current location) to the second location of the acceptor node 102 based on real-time or near real-time traffic congestion along a route between the first location and the second location”)
selecting the EV or the additional based on which has a highest ranked future availability; (see at least Fig. 9C, steps 946 and Fig. 9D, step 956)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to include the features of Singh with the invention of Cheung, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of providing mobile electric vehicle (EV) charging capabilities for when a driver does not find it convenient to charge the EV at home, the workplace or to reach a stationary charging location, which may cause the driver to get stranded, which may cause financial loss, time delays, and emotional despair to the driver of the EV, which is undesirable. (Singh, [0003])
Cheung discloses the following:
determining that the criticality of the energy need at the first location exceeds that of the second location; (see at least [0041] “The fleet management system 120 selects the second AEV 110b from the fleet of AEVs 110 based on the parameters of the power request 210” and “the third AEV 110c may have a higher charge level than the second AEV 110b, and the fleet management system 120 assigns the third AEV 110c to a second power request for a higher amount of power than the power request 210.”)
in response to the criticality at the first location exceeding that of the second location, controlling the EV to autonomously navigate to the first location and provide energy to the first location, (see at least [0041] “the fleet management system 120 selects the second AEV 110b because it is located near to the home 180 and has sufficient charge to drive to the home 180, provide the requested amount of power”)
Cheung does not explicitly disclose the following, which is taught by Conroy:
wherein the location of the EV is closer to the second location than the first location. (see at least Fig. 8, steps 804-816 and [0056] At operation 814, the dispatch server 104 utilizes the machine-learning model 112 to identify a most-appropriate available destination for the dispatch… Inputs to the machine-learning model 112 for this determination may include… distances to the drop-off locations 404, among other factors. For instance, it may be preferable to go to a drop-off location 404 that is further away but readily available to get a faster overall response time.”)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the features of Conroy with the invention of Cheung, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of improving the decision-making process for dispatch of service response vehicles to a location by considering other factors impacting the response time besides vehicles that are geographically the closest. (Conroy, [0002])
In regards to Claim 4, Cheung discloses the following:
4. The method of claim 1, comprising:
predicting a state-of-charge (predicted SoC) of a battery of the EV; and determining a state-of-charge (SoC) threshold for the amount of predicted SoC, when the EV provides the energy to the first location, (see at least [0016] “the AEV selected based on a current location of the AEV, the location, a battery level of a battery of the AEV, and the estimated amount of energy for servicing the request;” and [0041] “For example, the fleet management system 120 selects the second AEV 110b because it is located near to the home 180 and has sufficient charge to drive to the home 180, provide the requested amount of power, and drive to a charging station.”)
and wherein the controlling of the EV further comprises:
controlling the EV to travel to the first location in response to predicted SoC exceeding the SoC threshold. (see at least previous citations to [0016] and [0041], see also [0034] “fleet management system 120 instructs the selected AEV (e.g., AEV 110a) to autonomously drive to a particular location” and [0052] “The power system controller 530 may compare the level of charge to a threshold level, e.g., an amount of charge for the AEV 110 to return to a charging station, plus a buffer to ensure that the AEV 110 does not run out of battery while driving to the charging station. In response to the charge level of the battery 160 reaching the threshold level, the power system controller 530 switches the power distribution module 520 from the power source mode to the driving mode.”)
In regards to Claim 5, as best understood, Cheung discloses the following:
5. The method of claim 1, comprising estimating a future location of the EV. (see at least [0063] “vehicle manager 620 may instruct AEVs 110 to drive to other locations while not servicing a user, e.g., to improve geographic distribution of the fleet, to anticipate demand at particular locations, to drive to a charging station for charging, etc. The vehicle manager 620 also instructs AEVs 110 to return to EV facilities for maintenance or storage.”)
In regards to Claim 6, Cheung is silent, but Conroy teaches the following:
6. The method of claim 1, wherein the estimating of the future availability comprises:
estimating a future historical availability based on historical vehicle travel pattern data for the EV and the additional EV. (see at least [0044] “dispatch server 104 receives historical vehicle data 114 from dispatch vehicles 102 that were available for dispatch.” and “historical constraints data 116 may include distance of the vehicle 102 to a location, travel time of the vehicle 102 to the location, capabilities of the vehicle 102, capacity of the vehicle 102, and availability of the vehicle 102.”)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the features of Conroy with the invention of Cheung, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of improving the decision-making process for dispatch of service response vehicles to a location by considering other factors impacting the response time besides vehicles that are geographically the closest. (Conroy, [0002])
In regards to Claim 7, Cheung is silent, but Conroy teaches the following:
7. The method of claim 1, wherein the estimating of the future availability comprises:
estimating a future historical availability using an artificial intelligence (AI) model (see at least Fig. 7, steps 702-708 and Fig. 8, steps 802-808)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the features of Conroy with the invention of Cheung, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of improving the decision-making process for dispatch of service response vehicles to a location by considering other factors impacting the response time besides vehicles that are geographically the closest. (Conroy, [0002])
In regards to claims 8 and 11-14: Claims 8 and 11-14 are the systems performing the methods of claims 1 and 4-7, respectively, and are rejected the same or similar to claims 1 and 4-7, above.
In regards to claims 15 and 18-20: Claims 15 and 18-20 are the computer-readable storage mediums comprising instructions that, when read by a processor, cause the processor to perform the methods of claims 1 and 4-6, respectively, and are rejected the same or similar to claims 1 and 4-6, above.
Claims 2, 9 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheung in view of Singh and Conroy as applied, in further view of Ramanujam (US 20150339928 A1).
In regards to Claim 2, Cheung discloses the following:
2. The method of claim 1, comprising
estimating a future location of the additional EV; and
controlling the additional EV to autonomously navigate to the second location in response to the future availability of the additional EV being within a time threshold, (see at least [0037] “The fleet management system 120 may use the utility data to identify locations for providing power supplies and identify times or predicted times during which power is to be supplied.”, see also [0040] “start time of the power request”, “end time for the power request”)
Cheung does not explicitly disclose the following, which is taught by Ramanujam:
and the future location of the additional EV being within a distance threshold. (see at least [0027] “The autonomous vehicle 130 may be selected based on… a distance between the autonomous vehicle's current location and the pickup location” and “server 110 may ensure that the selected autonomous vehicle 130 is not already scheduled to perform services that conflict with the… service currently being scheduled.”, see also [0033] “selection module 232 may select the autonomous vehicle 205 based on the autonomous vehicle's current proximity (or expected proximity) to the pickup location at the selected pickup time”)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to include the features of Ramanujam with the invention of Cheung, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of preventing users from going without power for hours or days at a time. (Cheung, [0013])
In regards to claim 9: Claim 9 is the system performing the method of claim 2, and is rejected the same or similar to claim 2, above.
In regards to claim 16: Claim 16 is the computer-readable storage mediums comprising instructions that, when read by a processor, cause the processor to perform the method of claim 2, and is rejected the same or similar to claim 2, above.
Claims 3, 10 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheung in view of Singh and Conroy as applied, in further view of Braunstein (US 20230166613 A1).
In regards to Claim 3, Cheung does not explicitly disclose the following, which is taught by Braunstein:
3. The method of claim 1, comprising:
predicting, based on the energy need, a state-of-charge (predicted SoC) of a battery of the EV, determining a travel distance between the EV and the first location; and controlling the EV to travel to the first location in response to the predicted SOC exceeding a threshold. (see at least Fig. 3, step 318 and [0115] “at block 318… based on a current charge level of the service vehicle battery 112, energy expected to be consumed and/or captured by operations of the service vehicle 104 while traveling through the route 214, and energy expected to be transferred to and/or received from the machine 102… the service controller 118 can determine whether the service vehicle 104 is likely to be able to travel to the machine 102, travel with the machine to the maintenance station 208, and travel to the charging station 210 without the service vehicle battery 112 becoming fully discharged. In some examples, the service controller 118 can determine whether the service vehicle battery 112 currently stores at least 10% more energy, or any other threshold amount of extra energy, than is expected”, wherein the energy expected to be transferred to machine 102 is within the broadest reasonable interpretation of the energy need per Fig. 1 and [0065] “service vehicle 104 can attach the energy transfer connector 124 of the energy transfer arm 108 to the energy transfer port 110 of the machine 102, and can provide energy from the service vehicle battery 112 to the machine 102 via the energy transfer arm 108. The machine 102 can use the energy received from the service vehicle battery 112 to charge the machine battery 106 and/or to power operations of the machine 102”.)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to include the features of Braunstein with the invention of Cheung, with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of providing charge to a vehicle at a worksite or work environment location located away from a conventional machine charging station, wherein the vehicle is unable to travel and/or perform other operations if a battery of the machine is not charged. (Braunstein, [0003-[0004] and [0020])
In regards to claim 10: Claim 10 is the system performing the method of claim 3, and is rejected the same or similar to claim 3, above.
In regards to claim 17: Claim 17 is the computer-readable storage mediums comprising instructions that, when read by a processor, cause the processor to perform the method of claim 3, and is rejected the same or similar to claim 3, above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments and arguments made in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) have been fully considered, and are persuasive in part, however are not fully persuasive. See the modified and clarified 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) rejections for the amended claims above for details.
Applicant’s amendments and arguments made in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 103 have been fully considered, but are not persuasive. It is noted that Applicant traverses all rejections, however Applicant has not provided detailed specific reasons or arguments as to why the cited references do not disclose, teach or suggest the cited limitations. Therefore the traverse is not persuasive.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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 Jason Roberson, whose telephone number is (571) 272-7793. The examiner can normally be reached from Monday thru Friday between 8:00 AM and 4:30 PM. The examiner may also be reached through e-mail at Jason.Roberson@USPTO.GOV, or via FAX at (571) 273-7793. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor Navid Z Mehdizadeh can be reached on (571)-272-7691.
Another resource that is available to applicants is the Patient Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Information regarding the status of an application can be obtained from the PAIR system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAX. 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 any questions on access to the Private PAIR system, please feel free to contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll free).
Applicants are invited to contact the Office to schedule either an in-person or a telephone interview to discuss and resolve the issues set forth in this Office Action. Although an interview is not required, the Office believes that an interview can be of use to resolve any issues related to a patent application in an efficient and prompt manner.
Sincerely,
/JASON R ROBERSON/
Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669
May 29, 2026
/NAVID Z. MEHDIZADEH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights