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 Claims
Claims 1-20 were rejected in the Non-Final Office action mailed on 12/18/2025. Applicant’s amended claimset, entered on 02/23/2026, amended Claims 1-2, 11, and 14-16, canceled Claims 10 and 12, and added new Claims 21-22. Herein this Final Office Action, Claims 1-9, 11, and 13-22 are rejected.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 02/23/2026, with respect to Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 for Claims 1-9, 11, and 13-22, have been fully considered and are persuasive.
The claims, as interpreted in light of the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), provide patent eligible subject matter. Independent Claims 1 and 15, as a whole, provide an improved interface for an EVSE including conditional functionality for when a user is “away” or supporting the steps of charging, along with controlling the internal components of the EVSE itself.
Specifically, for Claim 1, the “message to the EVSE instructing the EVSE to perform a subset of a sequence of steps of charging an electric vehicle (EV) . . . 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” requires that the EVSE be considered as an “additional element” because the claimed “computer” exerts direct control of the operations of the EVSE via the “message . . . instructing the EVSE to perform . . .”
Applicant’s arguments filed 02/23/2026, with respect to Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 for Claims 1-9, 11, and 13-22, have been fully considered and are persuasive.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 1 recites “in response to receiving an indication of a fault in performing the subset of the sequence of steps by the EVSE while the user is located away from the EVSE, display a plurality of alternative EVSEs” at the fourth paragraph of the claim. The limitation of “while the user is located away from the EVSE” is interpreted as an additional triggering for the display of alternative EVSEs, as well as a a limitation for the entire causal operation. Thus, the claim limitation is analogous to: IF “[the computer] receiv[es] an indication of a fault in performing the subset of the sequence of steps by the EVSE” AND “the user is located away from the EVSE,” THEN “display a plurality of alternative EVSEs” “while the user is located away from the EVSE.” Such interpretation extends to the limitation of “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 subset of a sequence of steps of charging an electric vehicle (EV)” in the second paragraph, i.e. the message to the EVSE is only transmitted when (1) receiving the selection AND (2) the user is away, and the EVSE performs the “subset” “while a user is located away from the EVSE.”
Additionally, 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.”
Claim 1 recites “in response to receiving an indication of a fault in performing the 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. However, 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.
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.
Claim 1-9, 11, and 13-22 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.
Claim 1 recites “in response to receiving a selection of electric vehicle service equipment (EVSE) while a user is located away from the EVSE, transmitting a message to the EVSE instructing the EVSE to perform a subset of a sequence of steps of charging an electric vehicle (EV); . . .in response to receiving an indication of a fault in performing the subset of the sequence of steps by the EVSE while the user is located away from the EVSE, displaying 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 second, fourth, and last paragraph (i.e. first limitation) and “executing a large-language model (LLM) to generate handling operations for [[a]] the user to handle components of the EVSE, the handling operations supporting the steps of charging the EV; and outputting 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 (i.e. second limitation). The first limitation indicates that some of the steps (i.e. the “subset”) are performed by the EVSE itself, and occur while the user is away. However, the second limitation indicates that each step includes “support” from the user “to handle components of the EVSE” via the generated and displayed “handling operations.” Thus, the combination of the first and second limitations could be interpreted as (1) not all of the steps have “generate handling operations for [[a]] the user to handle components of the EVSE,” (e.g. when the user is “away” or when the step is the “subset” used by the EVSE to configure internal components) but for those that do, the handling operation are displayed with XR device overlaid on the EVSE, (2) every step including the “subset” requires support of user handling, but when the user is “away” the “handling operations overlaid on the EVSE” are overlaid onto a virtual representation of the EVSE, not the EVSE itself, or (3) the “subset” defines steps taken by the EVSE, without need for user handling of components or support, and the handling operations are only generated for steps that require user handling and support, i.e. while the user is not away. Because the combination of the first and second limitations are indefinite, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
For further examination herein, the “subset” of steps are limited to steps performed by the EVSE itself, without user “handl[ing]” of EVSE “components.” The limitation of “executing a large-language model (LLM) to generate handling operations for [[a]] the user to handle components of the EVSE, the handling operations supporting the steps of charging the EV” (emphasis added), is interpreted as “executing a large-language model (LLM) to generate handling operations for a second subset of steps that require the user to handle components of the EVSE (i.e. the user is not ‘away’ from the EVSE), wherein the second subset of steps are supporting the steps of charging the EV.”
Claims 2-9, 11, and 13-22 recite similar limitations to Claim 1 rejected above either directly or indirectly via dependency. Therefore, Claims 2-9, 11, and 13-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) with similar justification to the rejection of Claim 1 above.
Reasons for Withdrawal of 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 interpretation resulting from the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), 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 subset of a sequence of steps of charging an electric vehicle (EV); . . . 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” such that “in response to receiving an indication of a fault in performing the 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 [[a]] the user to handle components of the EVSE, and supporting the steps of charging the EV,] 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
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to 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
/MICHAEL P HARRINGTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628
Prosecution Insights