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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application on 08/17/2026, after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 07/30/2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-9, 11, and 13-22 were rejected in the Final Office action mailed on 06/12/2026. Applicant’s amended claimset, filed on 07/30/2026 and entered on 08/17/2026, amended Claims 1, 11, and 15. Herein this Non-Final Office Action, Claims 1, 3-6, 8, 11, 13-15, 17-19, and 21-22 are allowed and Claims 2, 7, 9, 16, and 20 are rejected.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 07/30/2026, with respect to Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for Claims 1-9, 11, and 13-22, have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the previous rejection, as written, has been overcome. However, the amendments yield new grounds for rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as was warned, in part, in the advisory action mailed on 08/05/2026.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 1 recites “in response to receiving a selection of electric vehicle service equipment (EVSE) while a user is located away from the EVSE, transmit a message to the EVSE instructing the EVSE to perform a first subset of a sequence of steps of charging an electric vehicle (EV);” in the second paragraph and “in response to receiving an indication of a fault in performing the first subset of the sequence of steps by the EVSE while the user is located away from the EVSE, display a plurality of alternative EVSEs;” in the fourth paragraph. The condition of “while a user is located away from the EVSE” in the second paragraph is a part of the “in response to . . .” clause, and therefore applies to the “first subset of a sequence of steps.” Such interpretation is further supported by the reiteration of “while the user is located away from the EVSE” in the fourth paragraph referencing “performing the first subset of the sequence of steps by the EVSE.” Put plainly, the “first subset of a sequence of steps” performed by the EVSE are limited to steps performed “while the user is located away from the EVSE.”
Examiner notes that the limitation of “the user is located away from the EVSE” (emphasis added) is definite and complies with 35 U.S.C. 112(b). Specification ¶52 states “The computer 105, 110, 115 may be programmed to determine a location of the user. In particular, the computer 105, 110, 115 may determine whether the location of the user is at the EVSE 205 or away from the EVSE 205. The user may be at the EVSE 205 if the user is within reach of the EVSE 205 (e.g., when the EV 100 is parked at the parking space 210 corresponding to the EVSE 205). For example, the computer 105, 110, 115 may determine the location based on data from a GPS sensor of the sensors 125 of the EV 100 or a GPS sensor of the remote computer 110 (if a mobile device) or the XR device 115. The user may be at the EVSE 205 if the location from the GPS sensor is within a threshold distance of a known location of the EVSE 205 and away from the EVSE 205 otherwise. For another example, the computer 105, 110, 115 may determine whether the transceiver 135 of the EV 100 or the remote computer 110 (if a mobile device) or the XR device 115 is within range of a transmitter of the EVSE 205. The user may be at the EVSE 205 if the transceiver 135, remote computer 110, or XR device 115 is within range of the EVSE 205 and away from the EVSE 205 otherwise.” (Emphasis added). Thus, the limitation of “the user is located away from the EVSE” is analogous to “the user is located greater than a distance from the EVSE.” Put another way, “the user is located away from the EVSE” when the user is not “at” the EVSE as described in Specification ¶52.
Claim 1 recites “execute a large-language model (LLM) to generate handling operations for the user to handle components of the EVSE, the handling operations supporting a second subset of the steps of charging the EV in which the user handles the components of the EVSE; and output the handling operations to an extended-reality (XR) device, the XR device displaying the handling operations overlaid on the EVSE, the XR device highlighting the components of the EVSE that are in the handling operations;” at the fifth and sixth paragraphs. Thus, the “second subset of the steps” is limited to steps “in which the user handles the components of the EVSE.” Further, the generated “handling operations” would be limited to when the user handles components of the EVSE. Additionally, Examiner notes that handling components of the EVSE would require the user be “at” the EVSE, i.e. not “away” from the EVSE, per the discussion of Specification ¶52 above.
Thus, Claim 1 includes a “first subset of the sequence of steps” limited to when the user is “away” from the EVSE, and a “second subset of the sequence of steps” limited to the user handling components of the EVSE, i.e. when the user is “at” the EVSE.
Claim 1 recites “in response to receiving an indication of a fault in performing the first subset of the sequence of steps by the EVSE while the user is located away from the EVSE, display a plurality of alternative EVSEs . . . wherein the subset of the sequence of steps includes configuring internal components of the EVSE to provide electricity from the EVSE to the EV via a charging protocol” at the fourth and last paragraphs of the claim. Although the “fault” is necessarily of one of the “first subset” of steps, the “fault” is not necessarily of the “configuring internal components of the EVSE.” See dependent Claims 2 and 11.
Claim 1 recites “A computer comprising a processor and a memory, the memory storing instructions executable by the processor to: . . . display a plurality of alternative EVSEs” at the first and fourth paragraph. The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation does not require that the “display[ing]” occur on hardware within the “computer,” but merely that the “computer” causes a “display[ing of] a plurality of alternative EVSEs.”
The interpretation of Claim 1 is extended to similar limitations of Claims 2-9, 11, and 13-22 including via dependency.
Examiner notes that the “charging” of an EV in reference to the “sequence of steps of charging an EV” (emphasis added) recited throughout the claimset, is not a strict limitation on the steps, i.e. the steps would not be limited to situations when electron charges are entering the EV. Instead, the broadest reasonable interpretation of “sequence of steps of charging an EV” include steps related to the “charging [of] an EV,” as is apparent by subsequent limitations and the discussion in the disclosure.
Finally, although Claim 8 complies 35 U.S.C. 112(d), Examiner notes that the phrasing of dependent Claim 8 could be considered to potentially indicate an intention of the applicant alternative to the interpretation of Claim 1.
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.
Claims 2, 7, 9, 16, and 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 inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim 2, Claim 2 recites “The computer of claim 1, wherein the sequence of steps includes the fault that interrupts the charging of the EV by the EVSE, and at least one of the handling operations is responsive to the fault.” (Emphasis added). As discussed above regarding the claim interpretation of Claim 1, “the fault,” is limited to a fault in the “first subset,” which occurs while the user is away from the EVSE, and the “handling operations” are generated based on the “second subset,” which occurs while the user as at the EVSE. Thus, the scope of the limitation that “at least one of the handling operations” “is” “responsive to the fault,” is indefinite as this limitation is in conflict with previously defined terms. Therefore, Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Regarding Claim 7, Claim 7 recites, (including depended upon Claims 4-5), “The computer of claim 1, wherein the instructions further include instructions to determine a role of the user with respect to the EVSE, and the LLM generates the handling operations specific to the role of the user, wherein the instructions further include instructions to select the role from a preset group including at least EV operator and repair technician, wherein the preset group includes call-center technician.” (Emphasis added). The broadest reasonable interpretation of a “call-center technician” is limited to a “technician” that is located at a “call-center,” i.e. away from the EVSE. As discussed above regarding the claim interpretation of Claim 1, “handing operations” are only generated for users at the EVSE. Therefore, the limitation of Claim 7 that the “handling operations” are generated based on a “role” of the user, which would include a user away from the EVSE (i.e. a “call-center technician”) is in conflict with the previous limitations. It is unclear how the “handling operations,” which are limited to steps performed by the user at the EVSE, can be generated for a “call-center technician” away from the EVSE. Therefore, the scope of Claim 7 is indefinite and the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Regarding Claim 9, Claim 9 recites “The computer of claim 1, wherein the instructions further include instructions to, in response to a location of the user being away from the EVSE, output the handling operations in virtual reality.” (Emphasis added). As discussed above regarding the claim interpretation of Claim 1, “handing operations” are only generated for users at the EVSE. It is unclear how the “handling operations,” which are limited to steps performed by the user at the EVSE, can be generated for a user away from the EVSE. Therefore, the scope of Claim 9 is indefinite and the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Regarding Claim 16, Claim 16 recites a similar dependent limitation to Claim 2, which is rejected above. In service of brevity, Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) by similar justification to Claim 2 discussed above.
Regarding Claim 20, Claim 20 recites a similar dependent limitation to Claim 9, which is rejected above. In service of brevity, Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) by similar justification to Claim 9 discussed above.
Reasons for No Art Rejections
Claims 1-9, 11, and 13-22 are not rejected over the prior art of record.
The Closest prior art of record is:
US-20240217376-A1 (“Panainte”);
“An Introduction to Large Language Models: Prompt Engineering and P-Tuning” (“Varshney” 04/26/2023 NVIDIA Technical Blog, https://web.archive.org/web/20230426164305/https://developer.nvidia.com/blog/an-introduction-to-large-language-models-prompt-engineering-and-p-tuning/).
and CN-116080455-A (“Mu”);
US-20200126445-A1 (“Tan”);
“ABB Terra HP user manual” (“ABB” 01/11/2021, https://search.abb.com/library/Download.aspx?DocumentID=9AKK107991A9088&DocumentPartId=);
US-20210080282-A1 (“Goei”);
US-20230290266-A1 (“Jia”);
CN-115496242-A (“Song”);
US-20230343044-A1 (“Greunke”);
US-20200143593-A1 (“Rudman”);
CN-204167964-U (“Lin”);
DE-102012214201-A1 (“Krammer”); and
WO-2018219286-A1 (“Li”).
The Following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for no art rejection:
Panainte shows tracking and providing assistance to a user charging their EV by providing step specific instructions created with a language model and displayed to the user in an AR environment, i.e. highlights overlaid on the charging component. Alternatively, the instructions can be displayed in Virtual Reality infotainment device to a user that is away from the charging station. The user can be a driver, passenger, or repair technician, and receives specific troubleshooting instructions in response to a fault in charging.
Varshney shows that large language models can be used to provide assistance.
Mu shows making a remote communication link, e.g. 5G (although also including more local wireless communication of Bluetooth), between a user device and a charging pile as a result of a user selecting that charging pile. After the connecting with the charging pile, the user device transmits instructions to the charging pile. The charging pile can detect a fault in the charging process (i.e. while the user is at the charging pile) and providing alarm information to the user device. In response to the fault, a route to an alternative charging pile may be selected. However, Mu does not explicitly teach that the fault or a portion of the charging process could be performed while the user is away from the charging pile or a determination step that could execute logic based on the user being “away” or not.
Tan shows selecting the role of a user (i.e. expert, on-site, remote, ect.), and based on that role, providing role specific instructions generated by an LLM which is trained using the manuals of the to-be-repaired devices.
ABB shows internal components of a charging post and repairs/maintenance is required by a certified technician.
Goei shows a user device communicating with a charging station to form a reservation for charging while the user is away from the charging station. While the user is traveling to the charging station, if an issue with that charging station is detected, providing the user with an alternative charging station to be selected. However, the charging station issue in Goei is that the vehicle will not have enough charge to make it there. Additionally, the reservation communication with the charging station does not include a configuration of internal components.
Jia shows using AR headset to provide instructions to on-site engineers working on equipment that can collaborate with off-site engineers viewing virtual reality for additional support.
Song shows providing a vehicle owner wearing AR glasses with vehicle maintenance instructions, with the option of contacting the manufacturer who can view a digital twin of the vehicle in virtual reality. Although broadly related to the instant claims, guidance for performing maintenance on a vehicle and guidance for using a charging station are fundamentally different.
Greunke shows use of a large language module used to provide maintenance instructions to an onsite user via augmented reality while tracking the steps of the procedure.
Rudman shows using AR to work with a remote user to provide assistance in a vehicle maintenance or repair operation. However, the remote user is not displayed alternative EVSEs.
Lin shows automatically switching the internal components of a charging station when a vehicle completes charging based on determined distance between vehicle and charging station exceeding a threshold.
Krammer shows automatically adjusting induction component of a charging station based on the measured distance to the vehicle. However, Krammer does not teach providing alternatives EVSEs upon an error.
Li shows selecting a charging station along a route. Upon a certain distance away from the charging station, e.g. 2km, provide a notification to the driver (i.e. not the charging station) to prepare for the charging. The system only permits selection of a target charging station if an alternative charging station would be available in the instance of a fault in operating the first charging station. However, the fault is not pre-determined while the user is away from the EVSE, but would occur upon actual charging.
Generally, the closest prior art teaches either (1) remote instructions to the charging station (Panainte, Mu, Goei, Rudman, and Li), (2), AR/VR environment to provide instructions (Panainte, Jia, Song, and Rudman), (3) large language model to generate instructions (Varshney, Tan, Jia, and Greunke), (4) fault notifications (Panainte, Mu, and Goei), (5) alternative charging stations (Mu, Goei, and Li), or (6) internal components of a charging station (ABB, Lin, and Krammer).
In light of the claim interpretation, with respect to independent Claims 1 and 15, the closest prior art, taken individually and in an ordered combination, does not explicitly or implicitly disclose the specific ordered combination of limitations of representative Claim 1 that include “in response to receiving a selection of electric vehicle service equipment (EVSE) while a user is located away from the EVSE, transmit a message to the EVSE instructing the EVSE to perform a first subset of a sequence of steps of charging an electric vehicle (EV); . . . wherein the first subset of the sequence of steps includes configuring internal components of the EVSE to provide electricity from the EVSE to the EV via a charging protocol” such that “in response to receiving an indication of a fault in performing the first subset of the sequence of steps by the EVSE while the user is located away from the EVSE, display a plurality of alternative EVSEs” and “output the handling operations [for the user to handle components of the EVSE, and supporting a second subset of the steps of charging the EV in which the user handles the components of the EVSE,] to an extended-reality (XR) device, the XR device displaying the handling operations overlaid on the EVSE, the XR device highlighting the components of the EVSE that are in the handling operations.”
Dependent Claims 1-9, 11, and 13-22 depend on Claims 1 and 15, and therefore are also not rejected via dependency.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW PARKER GOODMAN whose telephone number is (571) 272-5698. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday from 9:30 AM ET to 6:00 PM ET. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jeffrey Zimmerman, can be reached at telephone number (571) 272-4602. 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://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal. Should you have questions about access to the Private PAIR
system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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.
/MATTHEW PARKER GOODMAN/Examiner, Art Unit 3628
/JEFF ZIMMERMAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3628
Prosecution Insights